1984 - Central Vigilance Commission

REPORT
1-l-1984 to 3l-12-1984
CENTRAL VIGTLANCE COMMTSSION
NEW DELIII
0
r
'.
T
t
lt'
S
-r -. r1.b\ +o \' \1G\
ANNUAL REPORT
I-1-1984 ro 3t-12-1984
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMTSSION
NEW DELHI
.
The Central Vigilance Commission presetrts its TWetrty-first
Annual
Reporl relating to the Calendar year, 1984.
,{
sd/-
R. P. KHANNA,
Central
New Delhi,
The l4th Marcb, 1985.
0
V igilance
Comtnis;tioncr
-
CONTENTS
Surncr
Pages
l. Functio-rs
2. , Work done during the period .
3. Recommendations at various stages .
,+. rresent rend s
t ,5. Cases of Noir-Acceptance and Non-Consultiii ln etc.
6. Examination of Civil & other works by the Chief Technical
l-5
6-15
16-17
18-22
(
7,
8.
9.
23-89
Examiners' Organisatlon
90-111
Cbief Vigilance Ofrcers
PreventiveVigilance
ll2-123
r24-r28
General
129-t45
ANNEXURES
I.l
Work dono by Chief Vigilance Officers during th€ period
r.2
Pendancy with Chief Vigilance Officers during the period
1-l-84 to 31-12-i984
1-l-84 to
3l-12-1984
149*150
151-152
II,1 Recommendations regarding p€nalties at various stages in
cases investigated by CBI and completed during 1964 to
31-12-&4
r
Recommendrtions regarding penalties at various stages in
by CVOs and completed during 1964 to
cases investig?ted
31-12-84
III.
Number of cases completed during 1964 to 31-12-1984 and
arranged according to Departments & Groups of Mis-
IV.
Involvomont of om€rs in more than one case during 1964 to
conducts
31-12-1984
V. List of Public Sector
33-154
155-156
157-158
159-160
Uldertakings lvhich have adopted
Model Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules or C-entral Civil
Services (Classification, Cortrol & Appeal) Rules & CC,S
(Conduct) I{ules
161 -166
VI.
Central Vigilan<r Commission's advice disregardod in view
of the UPSC'S advice
(iii)
167
-.174
LIST OF ABBI1 F]VIATIONS
I, CVC
2. UPSC
]. CBI
4. CTE
5. Cl)l
6. CVO
7. DA
r.
Centrat Vigilance Carnrmissiotr
Union Public Stxvicc (lonnrission
Central llurgarr of Investigation
Chiel'ltcltiti.:il Erarniner
Commissiorrtlr
Chiel
gi1;lror O1'lici:r
I)iscipliirary Asthority
ro/tA
9. SPS
10. CCS (Ptnsion)
1I. RDA
I?. PO
V!
tbr l)epartnenlal Iuituirics
Inquiry
Ofl
icor/Inquiring Authorit,'..
Suspolrted Fublic Servant
Rules
Centrill Civil Ser-vices (l,ension) Rules, l9?2
Regular llep{,rtmcntal Action
Prescnr.rng
(v)
Oilircr
CHAPTER
T
FUNCTIONS
wistliction-The jurisdiction and powers of the Central
lo.T:tteT to which the
Vigilauc€ Commission (CVC) extcnds
power of the Union extends in relation to investigations
of public servants'
"**.""u,it"
and inquiiies into corruption and misconduct
Affairs'
,'iit ,t" Governmenl of India in the Ministry of Home
Ott
1964'
February'
l1th
daled
H.r"i*;." No.2417 164-AYD
l.l
t
has restricted
however, the Commissioo
ffi;i;fi""t*"ruiiiot,
of Gazetted Officers of Government
of India'
itself to the cases
less than
on""ru in scales of pay the minimum of which is-not
nationahsed
and
undertakings
nr. i,SOO in the puUlic sector
p'm' or atlove
tu.f.t, ana those drawing a basic pay oi Rs' 1'0O0
bodies under
siinilar
other
in local bodies or autonomous snd
variousMirristriesandDepartmentswhichdonotfellirranyof
the foregoing categories.
up.-The Commission is r one-member Commission
Commissioner
neaa.A UV Shri R. P' Khanna, Ceiltlal Vigilance
tbrce
Secretary'
by
a
assisted
is
He
1982.
.ince atn Jdy,
1.2
Set
l)irectors, a
ilputy
Secretary, two Under Secretaries and office
staff.
Departmental
1.3 There are eight posts of Commissioners for
for 2 months
Inquiries, of which two posts remained vacant, one
ol
and the other for 4 months on accou t of ncn-availability
substitutes.
and
1.4 There are two posts of Chief Technical Examiner
other
by
supporteil
are
of Technicai Examiner, who
eight posts
'Oo account
of the existing ilcumbent reverting to his
,tun.
vacant
cadre, one post of Chief Technical Examiner remained
for ei eJrt months due to non-availabilitv of a substitute'
I.5
Certain tenw explained
_ In
this Report,
(i)
Department, meaos
a
Ministry,
a
Department, an autonomous body, a local body, a public'sector
uadertaking or a public sector bauk.
(ii) Investigation-qhe inr"tstigatioo of a complaint is takcn
up to see whether the allegation is prima facie coneet and
nlovab]e._ Investigations are geaerally conducted through the
Investigation. (CBI) or through the Chiet
\zigilance Officers (AVOs) of the ccncerneri deparlments.
(hrtral Bureau of
iitl. lnquiries--lnquiries are quasi-judicial proceedings and
are instituted to determine whether charges/imputalions are true.
Oral inquiries are gerrerally conducted by the Commissioneis for
(
Departmental Inquiries (CDIs) who are administrativelv under
the control of the CVC. proceedings for awarding minor
pcnalty. not involving oral inquiry, are prccessed by the
depart,
mcnts themselves.
1.6 Complaints received
by the
Cnmmission go through
rnrption or serious detinquency,
and especially if investigation requires examination of persons
other than those employed in the concerned department, or ol
documents in private possession, are sent to the CBI for
investigation. Other complaints are ordinarifu sent to the concerned CVO for investigation. Complainrs containing
allegations
rvhich are of administriative nature are sent to the concerned
departments for necessary action. C)n receipt of the CBI,s
investigation repofi, comments of thc department are
called for,
Thereafter, the Commjssion tenders its first stage advice on the
proceedings to be followed vir. criminal proceedings,
major
peoalty.proceedings, minor penalty proceedings, and closure
where
no action is called for. Criminal proceedings are follorved up
by the CBI and minor penalty proceeclings by the concerned
dcpartments. If the advice is for major penalty proceedings,
the Commission recommends the name of a Commissioner for
flepartmental Inquiries for appointment as Inquiry Ofrcer.
The
several stages. Allegations
)
of
co.
'...
t
I
if
the
Officeq'
pleacls not guilty, appoints the. Inquiry
and
dcpartment concernerl then issues the charge-sheet;
t
gives second
"tiiccr.oor"roed
On receipt of the inquiry.tlotr' tttt Commission
penalty
*iog. nAui., about tle p.oulty to he imposed , The in the
t . u major penalty or a n'inor penalty as ciefined
p(oved
"u,i
t".O*rf* Uir"iplinary Rulet Where the charges are not
In
;i;;; ,urp."i om... is found innccent, he is exonerated'
it'
atter
consulted
again
is
n',i"u, pe nutiy cases the Commission
the
;;;;lditg tle charged officer's replv to the chars€-sheet'
tbe
lf
penalty'
any
imposs
department does not propose to
is
recomaction
coi,rplulnt is faise and malicious, aonropriat:
are issued by
rrr.n,t*rf against the comptainant' Final orders
with
consultation
in
iit"" o,*;pfi"-l' authority in the department'
(
IPSC, wherc necessary'
o! CVC.-"t\e role of the Contmission in promoting
bv its
vigilance health among public servants is circumscribed
l.'7
Rate
frii'rctirrns rvhich,
in
essence' are
:
-
to be made into a$y act
(i)
-' to cause an investigatiorr
invclving corruption' lack of
of a'public
servant
integrily, misconduct, misdemeancuL' or nralpractices;
consider the investigation report and to advise
prothe disciplinary authorily about the nature of
ceedings to be initiated;
(ii) tc
nominate a Commissicnel for [)epattmental
Inquiries (CDI) to courluct the oral disciplinary
(iii) to
inquirY; and
and advise
the disciplinary authority about the penalty' if any'
(iv) to consider the report of the inqui$' ofticcr
'Vigilance'
1.8 Ro/a ol ather agencies.-Ahe responsibility for
concsloed'
rests prim'arily and squarely on the departmeots
nt.y ur", however, assisted by such agencies as the CRI who
?
undertake iuvestigation
theniselves responsible
refcrred
to the CBI.
in
suitable cases. Departments .are
for makhg investigation into cases not
7,9 Otlpr functiow of CVC.--The &mmission also sppleyg,
fippaintment of CVOs in the Departments/Ministries and public
Sector etc., and
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
resolves difierences of opinicn, if any, between
CBI and the dEpartment concerned;
advises
the
on improvemdnt in procedurc and practices;
organises regular training ccurses for the CVOs of
departments and assists the departments in conducting
such coursgs for other functionaries; and
calls for reports, returns and statements from all
in order to exercise general check and
supervision over the. vigilance and anti_conuplion
work in the departments,
departments
1.10 Strengthening of CVC,s $art._A$ the basis of a work
siudj/ conducted by Government in l98l-82, some,additicnal
stall was sanctioned to the Commission in 19g3 but as pointed
out in the Commission,s Iast Annual Reporr, certain aspects of
Commission's work requiring srrengthening of personnel were
-the
left uncuvered bv the sajd work study and thit these were beinp
pursued with the Government. fhe latest position in regard
ti
the. additional staff requirement of the Commission for preventive
vigilance work has been discqssed in detail separstely
in Chapter g
of this report. As far as the punitive vigilanca work cf the
C<immission is concerned, the qucstion of strengthening
of the
organisation of Chief Technical Examiners, prouidiog adcquate
number of stenographers to the Commissioners for Departmerrtal
Inquiries and the creation of a post of Deputy Se,cretary for work
relating to coordination, training and publioations, contilued
to
4
bc r:rder cxamination in consultation with the Department of
Pcr:onnel & AR-. It has further been brought to the notice of
that De partment that the cut made in the number of assessed
requirement of the additional staff during the course of the work
stucly is required to be reslrrred in vie'r of the fact that the
antiiipated drop in the Commission s workload on the basis of
which the cut was imposed had not actually occurred and that,
on the contrary, there is a substantial increase in the workload
duting the years 1983 and. 1984. This is under Govtrnment's
consideration.
'
CHAPTER 2
IVORK TX)NE DIJRINC T}IE PERIOD
2.1 Organisatlon.---The group-wise sdnctioned strength and
the rumber of persons in position on 31st December, 1984 are
sivcrr
below:-
Group
A
Sanctioned
In position
26
25
Group
BC
53
52
Group
Group
D
59
55
53
42
Total
.191
174
Work in the Commission is officer-orie,nted and, is attended
to by the Centnal Vigilaace Commissioner, assisted by a Secretary
and {our officers of the level of Deputy Secretary and of Director.
Ttrere are eight posts of Commissioner for Depar nental
Inquiries, also of the level of Deputy Secretary and Dfuector.
On the technical side, drere are two Chief Technical Examiners
of the rank of Chief Engineer aided by eight Technical Examiners
o{ the rank of Eexcutive Engineer, to advise on mdtters requiring
techirical knowledge.
2.2 Complnints,-During the year the Commission received
1,390 complaints. Action taken on lhe complaints is indicated
below:(i)
Brought_ forward from the previous year i.e. tbe number
ot complarnts pending as on 3l-12-1983
(ri) Received during the y6ar
(t'i) Totat
(iv) Sent to CBI for investigation
(r) Sent to the CVOs for investigation
(l'i) Sent to the CVOs for necessary actionidisoosal
(r'r'i) Filed .
(r'rrr) Total disposed of
(ir) Carried forward to 1985
6
20
I,390.
1,410
IT
316,
248.
814
1395
15
..*+:.
2.3.1 Investigation reports '-'f\e Commissiolr received
643 investigation reports from thg CBl and 991 from the CVOs
for its first stage advice. At the end of the year, 301 tcports
weie pending, The details are as undet:Invcstigation
r€ports
receiled
il;".li:-_ t,,t"l
from the
CBI
lrom the
CvOs
Brought forwirrd fr', m lhe previous year,
i.e. the nunlber 'rf investig.tion rcylrls
i
;
I
ga.tion
r€ports
rccei\€d
ll-83
1t6
t85
:t02
€lr
613
991
l614
Tor,rl
759
|,177
1,936
of
6,15
pending as on 3l-
Rccdived J,iring the
Disposed
]
4
Pending
990
187
2.3.2 The nature of the first stage advice was as under
the
CBI'S
investiBation
reports
On
Nature of advice
I,63s
301
:-
On the
CVos'
investi-
gation
reports
24
Crininal procerdings
22
z
Major p€nalty action
139
295
Minor penalty aclion
45
85
130
Jt'l
209
Administrative & ofller action
I
-
Closure
)J
Further investigation or comments
l6
Total disposed of
NOTE
:
Commjssion
394
115
131
I
a77
did not tender any advics on 297
-The
CBI rePorts and I 6 CVOs' reports as its advice nas
not
necessary'
2.4.1 Inquiry tcports and minor penalty cd.eer.-The
Commission received 389 inquiry reports from the CDIs and
95 cases from the CVOs for its second stage advice. Only
47 CDI reports/cases were pending as on 3lst December, 1984,
The details n1s xs undsl;Received Received Total
the
CDIs
from
Brought forward from the prcvious year
i.e. the number of inquiry reports and
minor penalty cases pending as on
3r-12-1983.
Received during the ycar
from the
CVOS
35
389
10
95
484
r05
TOTAL
Disposed
45
.
389
.35t247
of
Pcnding
93
482
2,4.2 The nature. of the Commissionls second stage advice was
33 Undgl
;-
Nature of advice
On the
On
CDI's
the
Total
cases
reports
received
from the
CVOs
Major p€nalty
?.n
25
u5
Minor penalty
3l
22
53
Exoneration
c't
17
46
l5
6l
8
l5
Other action
.
Furthci ioquiry
TOTAL
NorE :
I
386
In 3 cases received from CDIs and 6 cases received. from CVOs,
tho Commission's advice was not n€c€ssary.
2.5 Other
cases
lor misce areous
ad,vice
or tecowiderution:
Brought forwar(l from the previous year, i.?. Ihe number of other
cases pending us on
3
l-12-1983
.
Received Curing the year
482
506
45E
.Llsposcd or
48
Pending
..1
I
I
I
2.6.7 lnquiries by the Commissioners lor Derytmenlal
lnquiries :-After receipt of the advice of the Central Vigilance
Cornmission for initiation of major penalty action, the disciplinary authority issues a charge-sheet to the public servant dirccting
him to submit a written statement of defence withiu the speci.fled
period and also to state whether be desires to be heard in person'
Il the charged oficer admits the charges, the disciplinary authority records its finding on each charge and after obtaining the
Ccmmission's second stage advice, takes further action for imposition of a penalty. In case the charged omcer denies the
charges, norrnally an oral inquiry by a CDI nominlted by the
Commission is held. Ar the end of the year under report, there
were 219 cases more than 3 montls old in which the disciplinary
authorities had not issued orders appointhg the CDIs as Inquiring Authcrities. Of these, 77 were more than one year old.
Department-wis€ break-up of these cases is given bclow:
No. of
pending
nominations
Department
S.No.
a
i.
more
than 3
months
F
1.
2-
Department of Agriculture
Air India
3.
,1
Arunachal Pradesh .
D€partment of Atomic Energy
S/3 CVCi
8,r-z
.
31-
more
,Jhan
year
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Bank of Baroda
Bank of India
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Bharat H€avy Electricals Ltd.
Bombay Pon Trust
.t 2
1
tz
I
10. Burn Standard Company
11. Canara Bank .
12. Central Bank of India
13, C-€ntral Board of Direct Taxes .
14. Central Provident Fund C-ommissioner
15. C€ntral Public Works Departmen{
16. Department of Coal
U.
;
1
I
I
6
I
I
I
I
3
2
I
1
I
Mitistry of Cornmerc€
18. Comptroller & Auditor General of India
19. Cotton Corpn. of India Ltd,
20. Cusloms & Central Excise
21, Ministry of Defence
22. DelhiAdministration
23. D€lhi Developmeni Atrthority
24. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
25. Ministry of Educatior! Social Wblfare & Culturc
26, Ministry of Extemal Affairs
2?. Goa, Daman & Diu
28. Ministry of Heafth & Family Welfare
3
I
;
2
I
I
1
I
I
;
I
2
291 Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
30. Department of Industrial Dwelopment
31. Ministry of Infomr:tion & Broadcasting
32. Dopartment of Labow
33. Lifc Insuance Corporation of India .
34. Dcpartment of Mines
35. Minerat Exploration Corporation
36. Municipal Oorporation of Dslhi
37. Natiornl Aluminium ComPanY
38. Nxtional Builciing Construction Corprration
l0
l'
t
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
39. National Ldustrial Development
40. National Insurance Company
41, National Thermal Power Corpn.
42. New India Assumnce Company Ltd'.
43. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
44. D€partment of Person:rel & A.R.
45. Dgpartment of Petroleum
46. Posts and l'elegraphs
47. Department of Power
48. Railways
49. Depafl]trlen! of Rural Delelopmenl
50. Department of Space
51. State Bank of lndia
52. Stal€ Bank of Indore
53. Stale Trading Corporation
54, Steel Authority of India Ltd.
55. Syndicate Bank
56. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.
57. Union Bank of India
58. United India lnsurance Company
59. Ministry of Works & IJousing .
TOTAL
I
Corporation
3
;
I
I
I
I
t
II
l4
1
36
22
I
I
I
,'
4
3
I
I
I
3
1
I
I
I
t42
2,6,2 lt is a matter of great regret that the departmentr have
been taliing an unduly long time in appointing CDIs with the
rtsult that the disposal of the inquiries is delayed. The Commission has from time to time drawn the attention of the departments to this so that the Inquiry Officers are appoitted at least
$ithin a period of 3 months. In five cases pertaining to New
Deihi Municipal Comr$;Se, Municipal Corporation of fhlhi,
DelN State lndustrial-f,Corporation Limited, Delhi
Develop-
meot Authority and Ministry of Education, there was inordinate
delay ranging between l+ to 2 yeals in appointing CDIs as
Inquiry Offcers. As a result, the Commission withdrcw tho
nomination of tle Comunrasione.rs for Departmental Inquiricr in
these cases.
l1
2.7 Tfu, Commission regrets to note that the disciplhary
authotities bave not been prompt in_implementing ils advice in
many caso.s. There are as,many as 152 cases pending for over 6
mcnths for imldemcntation of the lst stage advice and ?5 cases
pending oler 6 months for implementation of .its 2nd stage
advice. Department-wise br.eak up of these cases is given
below:S.
No.
Depariment
No- of cases pending
for
implementalion
of
Ist stage
advice
l. Agriculturc
2. Andaman & Nicobar Admn.
3. Arunachal Pradesh .
4. Deptt. o[ Aton]ic Energy .
5. Bank of Baroda
6. Bant of India
7. Bbarat Hear,y Electricals Ltd.
8. Bombay pdrl Trust
9. Border Roads Development Board
10.
ll.
Cabinet Secretariat
Catcutra Port Trust
.
General of India
Courrcil of Scientific and Industrial Research
21. Cusloms & Cenrral Excise
20.
z?.
11
Delhi Adminislration
1
,,
1
2
+
z
I
z
t
1
Canara Bank
13. Central Bank of India
14. Ccnlral Coalfields Ltd.
15. Cenlral Public Works Departmenr
16. Department of Coal
1?. Coal I ndia Lrd.
18.
Ministry ol'Commerce
ftmptroller & Auditor
3
1
12.
19.
2nd stage
advice
2
I
T
2
I
I
4
I
3
4
I
1
23. Delhi Developmert Authority
?A, Delhi Electriciry Supply Undertaking
25. Delhi State Industrial Development Co4)oration
26. Dena Bank
2?. Eastem Coalfields Ltd.
28. Ministry of Education, Social
29. Mrnistry of Extemal Affars
Welfare and Culturc
30.
31.
Goe, Daman & Diu
32.
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
DepJrtrnent of Food
33. Department of Heavy Indrstry
34. Incomstax
35. Indien Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
36. Indian Ovcneas Bank
37.
Indian Telephone Industries
38. India Tourism Development Corporation
39. Indo-Burma Petroleum & Balmer Laurei Group of
Companies
J
I
6
t
2
2
1
I
I
I
2
I
3
3
1
I
1
I
t
40.
Department of Irrigation
4l42.
Department of t abour
2.
Lakshadw-eepAdministration
2
I
.
,+1. DepartmJlt. of Mines
I
44. Modern Food Industries .
45. b{unicipal Corporation of Delhi
46. National Aluminium Company
47. North Eastem Electric Poli'er Corpn.
48. Department of Personnel & Administrative
I
I
I
I
Reforms.
49, PlanningCommission
50. PondicherryAdministation
J
t3
51,
Posts
& Telegraphs
'rz
.
52. Dcpartment of Pow6r
53. Punjab & Sind Bank
I
5,1. I\njab National Bank
z
I
55,
Railways
56.
Dcpartmont of Rural Development
57.
Dcprrtmenl of Science & Technology
l0
58, D.partment
I
I
of Space
59.
Slatc Bank of Hyderabad
J
60.
State Bank of India
6
61.
Statc Bank
62.
Statc Trading Corporation
of Mysore
63. Departmri
of
Siecl
2
.
I
I
6,1. Union Bank of India
I
65. Unit(d Bank of lndia
66. United Commorcial Bank.
67. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust
68. Minisry of Works & Housing
z
TOTAL
I
I
ll
.53
2,8 Troining :-Dudtrg the ycar, thc Commission .rrrngpd
thrcs llxining cours€s for Chief Vigilance Ofrcers (CVOs) , trc
in tle Indian Institute of Public Adminishalisa (IIPA) rnd
une in its own offico. Seventy four CVOs were traincd, Thc
courses werc well re@ived aod these have undoubtedly incrcascd
the awareness dnd uuderstanding of the CyOs in vigihnce
mslterf.
lrt
I
While training couscs lor the CVOs are being organired by
the Commission, many departments have been advired to cotrduct training coutse ior their vigilance ofrcers. Department ol
Agriculture and Cooperation, Cement Corporation o{ India
Ltd., Central Public Works Department, Central Warehousing
Corporation. Ltd., Customs and Central Excise Department'
Indian Oil Corporation, New Bant of India, Post and Telegraphs
Department, Punjab National Bank. Railway Board', United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc., we,re among rhose who organised
such training courses during the year and Commission's ofrcers
were associated with these cours€s.
2.9 Bullctin :-During the year, three Bulletins were
brought our in May, Sepember and December. These contained,
inter dia, summaries of important judicial decisions and impo(tant circulars relevant fo vigilance work, issued by the CommirsionlDepartment of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.
l5
CTIAPTER
3
RECOMMENDATIONS AT VARIOUS STAGES
3.1 In this chapter,
it
is intended to discuss the recommen-
dations made by the investigating agencies and the Commission,
in all cases completed between 1964 and 1984.
3.2 The total number of officers against whom aetion at
various st4ges has been recommended is-given in Annexure
ILl and Il.2 and, summarised ia the following statement :
Prosecution
Inves-
Major penalty
Commi-.Inves-
Ist
tiga- ssion's tiga- adtion advice tion
vice
R€ports
Reports
c.B.I.
479
2nd
advice
Inves-
tic3tion
Reports
lst
hd
ad: advico vice
265
3207
zL
lo
878
731
W2
l9
?,482
BM
r077
1134
1178
c.v.o.
3.3 From
Minor ponalty
tle
587
foregoing table, it may appear that there is
numbers 'between the cases in which CBI
a wide difierence in
reccmniended prosecution and those in which Commission
advised the same. Tbis is so because the Commission's advice
is necessary only in those cases where snncti()n for plosecution
to bo issued in the name of President or where there
is a difference of opinion between ilre CBI and ths disciplinary
is
aulhority.
3.4 It may also appear at first sight from the foregoing table
that the seriousness with vlhich s case is viewed gets diluted
with the passage of time. But this is not actually so, as clarified
in the following paragrapbs.
t6
3,5 The first stage advice is based on whether prima fade'
a case has been made out upon lhe gravTty of the ruiscondut'
if prcved. Thus appropriate adrdnis[rative actiol or minor
perialty proceedings are recommended in cases of mere prothe
ceCura irregutarity or those that do not ca'st a reflcstion on
no
loss
ict egrity oi th" .oo..toecl pubiic selrant anrl where
corhas Le,n causea. Where a criminal case of misconduct' or
ruptron is made out and there is sufficient aird strong cvidence
tikely to withstaf,d the test of judicial scrutiny, prosecution is
recommended. In other cases of serious misconduct, major
penalty proceedings are tecommendecl. As stated earlier, tho
initial advice is based on the investigation leport. A formal
inqurry, however, does sometimes clisclose a difierent picturo'
baied- on the totality of the evidence presented both by the
concerned organisation and the defending officer'
3.6 The second stage advice is based upon the findings of
thc Inquiry Offcer as to the facts of the charges. The C.VC.'
horrever, may differ from the findings if the int€rptetatiqn of
rules/procedures/evidence so justifies. It is the {unction of tbe
C.V,C., while giving advice, not only to examine the proof of
misconduct but to take a view wiih regard to relevant rulcs,
procedures etc., of the seriousness of such nrisconduct in the
light of the individual position and reqpcnsibility of the cbarged
officer. The commission of a misconduct by a senior officer is
viewed with relatively greater seriousness. Tl-re CVC also
tries to ensure that penalties recommended a(e, to the extent
trircssible, uniform for similar misconduts.
3.7 It is the duty antl obligation of every public servant to
act honestly, reasonably and in good faith at all times. Since
116 Qommission is concerned primarily with vigilance, it necessarily takes a setious view of lapses in ch aracter relating to
iategrity, altloigh loss to Government on account of negligenco
and dereliction of duty i5 also not condoned.
l7
CTIA?TER, 4
PRESEI\T TR,EI\IDS
4.1 Trends, if any, emerqbg from the fgures of cases
initiatetl and processed, penalties irnposed, types of miscsnduct
and officers involved are summarisgd in tbis chapter
4.2 (a) Sotsces :--...9ources of cases initiated during tho
last 4 years, for 7 leading d€partments+ which accqrnt for 55
per c€nt of cases, are given below :
Yoar of initiation
Initiated compby
CBI
laints
Inspec- Initiated
&
Audit
tions
by Yieilancc Staff
Totel
y2
1981
JL5
163
34
1982
r983
1984
2N
136
29
t43
50t
365
113
34
213
725
3r9
237
48
177
7El
145
555
Torir,
.Customs &_Gntral Excisc,
.Defence, Banks, Posts
Railwap, Works
&
Housing and Income-tax.
&
Telegrapls,
4.2 (b) Cases whicb were completed between 1981 and
1984, including the casei initiated during the previous years,
tor 7 main departme e which contribu te 57.2 per-cent of thc
cases closod during these years, bave been studied separatrly
fo see the present trend. The results are summarised in thc
iable below :Results of Cases
Prosecution
Major ponalty
Minor penalty
Othcr action
'ForAL .
IR
1982
f
6
68
111
58
192
624
529
933
83
l2l
66
573
tr8
s4
n9
461
4.2 (c) The
cases
of the s€vcn departments
mentioaed
abovc completed between 1981 to 198.1 were anaiysed with e
view to bringrng out the pay. raoges of the pubilc servants or
whom the penalties were imposed. Iire result is suomariscd
bclow:-
Number
of
officers panalisrd
Pat rang€s
Morc than 2500
1600-2500
..
2+7
l100-1600
lr$
/+8
than 1100
-Repeaters
-j8)
?E6
134
ToTAL
n
341
1334
1468
;
O-Others; and
T-Total
4.3 Perahies :-(a)An investigating officer. while subnitting his report, recommends the irroceedings to irc initattrd.
Taking into consideration the investigation report and the
with the cirpartnent's recommendatiotr,
the Commission tenders first stage udvice regardirig the procee dings to be initiated. In major penalty cases, the Commission tenders second-stage advice on receipt of Inciuiry Officer's
reports. In minor penalty cases alsr, the Cc'r niissibn tenders
sccond-stage advice if, after considering defeace sr atem€ot; it
is proposed not to impose a minor penalty. Ttese recommc*
dations in cases investigated by the CBI :rnd completed duri4t
defence vereion together
r9
xaH
88e
oe{!/r
ct a,l
-;
<{ cr
e{
c.9
!>>
F!
!)o
o! or)
c,
a{
g.E H
E KR
o
't
od(\
Fi
I
aB
(!
$RF
PRF
(Do
5n€
d
ro ro
F9
rd
(J
-6
!
a{Na{
lD5
I
I
;
o{}
n
'Fo
6frs
€a3
al
NO
oF..l
@\oa-
r-
ad
R8R
3€
-d)
ri4
F t-i
o0)
.IJ
o o.o
s? s? $a '<$'
+E+E+E i?
EE
a)
tH:.H*!
Il)
$n"F5,"sr
l=
l.-
fiE
=t =?._ill5
o6?
a.=
a
iq
e
20
I
i(.r.liE6 E6{
Ii
:r
F.c
E8q\
Eg
6;
\o
5.s
l.{
\o
a\
8-
98
A'
RF
o.o.
'o
o0
3,
ii
I
G'
tt9
T€
ip F?+g
Ftritr
F=
e9
E
-^
9g
5=
*s
NR
,.
d1{-:
it' ia as lo ?o
idis{:l
€;
o{
I
5\6
6(},
dr
ebo
t()
I
I
4-9
'ii ,.o
N$f:
a,
e_-
i-
.c)
Xd
()E
r{(J
(,
q)
o
I
o\ \o
F.i\O
tt
<.
Y
o
:.!
-!
!ii
:i;.
^x o--Q
6..9
!tH g-9Q
&.=? -?
E"
d3a{
trco
Fdr
!.n
5+ ES
<3 <I
5P
AA
xtr
5E;fi 2Z
cil
(\a
I
4.4 Croups
(a-) Number of cdses completed from 1964 to 1984
arrangcd according to groups of misconduct and departments
are given in Annexure III. A summary is given below :
46t1
Abus€ of pow€r
Disproportionate assets
49+
Ch€ating
194
Making or using false records
Showing or taking favours
Misappropriation of public property
1903
253?
951
.
Negligence
1709
I)oing private business
189
Veng€aoc€/llarassment
59
0th€r Misconducts
963
Tor,c.r
(b)
t
Comparative cumulative figures
fzrlling under 'the main specific groups
of
completed
3608
cases
for three r€port pcriods
(including this one) ar€ gtven below:-
Groups
19th 20th
Annual Annual
Repon Report
l-1-82 1-1-83
to
to
Annual
Report
1-l-84
(Au
(Ail
3l-1?-82 3l-12-83
(Au
Deptts) Deptts)
Abuse of power
3889
Disproportionat€ assets N{aking or using [alse records
420
1641
Showing or lah ing favours
Misappropriation of public property
2120
Negligeoce
1624
Other misconducts
TOTAL
818
t 303
.
1
1815
21st
3l
to
-l?-84
Deptts)
4212
460
1791
2331
890
1664
136'1
12175
4614
494
1903
2532
951
1709
1405
i3@&
2T
number ol officers werc found to havo bcen
involved in more than one case. The number of ofrcers deprrtment-*ise, who came to adverse notice during the pcriod 1964
4.5
to
A
1984 and were puaished are given in Aanexur'e
all the departments are summarised below :
fir
lV.
Totais
-
No. of
ofrccrs
who
cllne to
No. of
No. of offic€rs out of
Col. I involved in two
or more cases
No. of
omc€rs out
of Col,
3
punished
advcrsc
Completed
once
notke
ofrcers out
of Col, 3
No. of
ofrcer! out
of Col. 3
lwicc or
mont
asainsl
whom
cas6 wcrc
punished
InOTE
closed
tht!,
olls
_6
1446
It will be seen that 34.4 per-cenl of thc oflicers,
vrho came
to advirse notice more than once rgainst wbom proce'edings
harc been completed, were punisheti oncc and 29 per-cent
punisbed more than once.
4.6 Clnrges and Wn&ties:---lThe following table shows
thc number of cases concluded between 196.1 and 1984 and
thr final decisions taken therein :Pros€cu-
tion
(i)
Maior Minor
penalty penalty
C.orruption and
Others
Total
llck of int€crity
tu7
t576
7019
10688
(t ) Lack of devotion to duty
n2
/190
2148
2920
TcrrAl-
256
21t9
9167
This would work out to an average of 489 cases utrder categdry (i) and 158 cares under category (ii) per year.
2?.
CHATTTEI(
5
CASES OT NON.ACCEFIANCE AND NON.
CONCI,JLTATION ETIC.
5.1 In this chapter thc facts of those cases are narratcd
which the Commission considers have not bcin dealt rr ith properly
and es pcr procedure prescribed fol dealing rvi:lr vigilanc.e
cases, These carcs have Lreen divided into five sroups as siven
bclow:
'
(i) Para 5.2.-{ases not ilcalt with properly ;
(iil Pan 5.3.-Casei rvhcrc the departmenls have not
accepted the advice tendered by thc Cornluission;
(iiD Paa 5.4.-{ases
co$ult
|iv
I
(v\
where
the
departments
did
not
tbe Comnrrsslon as required ;
Para 5.5--Cases of undue delay ;
Pa.ra 5.6.--4ases of lack
of response.
5.2 CASES NOT DEALT WITH PROPERLY
Sorne of the cases which have not been properly dealt with
by tlic departmetrts are given bt. low :-.
.
/
(i7 Cenual Bank of Indla.--4.enrrt I Bureau of In'restigation afier investigations hat recom.rnended inter-alia prosecuticn
of an Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper for nrisappropriation of an amount of Rs. 8,8O7 entrusted to hinr by the
varrous a@ount holders for being deposited in their r€spective
sa./inss bank accounts. ()r requg51, thc Commission agreed with
the Bank that departmcntal procecdings shouid be initiated
agaiast the officer to be tnsli566 within 4 months where af ter
23
sanction for prosecution of the ofrcer would issue, since the
bank wanted to deal with the matter expeditiously and to
terminate the services of the officer rather thatt to keep bim on
for the lengthi ol time needed for the conclusion ol a crlrninal
casc. Acrording to the B.:nk. under the bipattite settlemett
between Indian Baoks Association ard All India Bank
the Bank c<iuld not initiate departmental action against the ofiicer for the same lapsas dunng
the pcndency of the plcsecittion case. During the inquiry the
Enrployees' AsSociation,
churgc of misappropriation was proved afld the Bank inflicted
a penalty of discharse on the sad employee. This pgnalty'
according to fte Commission, is inadequate con'sidering that
the cnarge proved againrt hinr wag that of rnisappropriation ot.
the {unds of the
Bank.
(1i) Cu'stoms &. Central Excise.-In November, 1978' tbe
Commission asked the Centrlri Board of Excise and Customs
(CBEC) to make a report abcrut the conduct of an Assistant
(,olicctor and a few other officers who were found to have
failetl 1o tender necessary assistance and co-operatiQn to thc
lnquiry Officer who w4s one of the CDIS attaohed to t}is Commlssion in a departmental inquiry against two officers of the
CIIEC, by either not producing tbe additional documents
rcquisitioned by the Inquirv Officer (I.O.) or not fmnishing
tllcn] piornptly. . Though the conduct of the said Assistant
Collectq ancl o*ters was in clear violation of rules, the
Dcpartment dealt with it in a very pelfuitctory manner' Finally'.
in March, 1984 i.e. after almost 5* years, the Department
wrote to tbe Commission saying that the Assistant Collector
concerned had .iilready retired from service, that the delay on
his part in furnishing ths documgnts to the I.O. was not
inlenticnal etc. and recommetr.led that the matter may b€
allorved to rest. On s scrutiny of the papers referred do the'
Commission, it was observed that the explanation . of tbe con. cerned Assistant Collector was obtained by the Department as.
early as in February 1979, but that, inspite of the same, the
caso \\a{ not examined or folkrwed up fuither for years together.24
Under the circumstances ad infrrence is inescapable that the
.fact about the officer's retiremerra -which went unnoticed:
:initirlly-was subsequently used by ths Department as an excuse
.itor closing the case **rich was allowed to drag on indefinitely
rmthout atry action.
Dethi Development Authority.-111 \trgtsl 1979, the
a written conrptaini against certaio ofrcials coataining specifc and verfiable allegations regarding
d€libtrate misplacing of a few allotment slips in order to favo$r
cErtain private persotrs in tlle allotment of -flats in a resettlement
colotry. The complaint was s€nt in September 1979, lor enquiry
:rhd rcpott. There was no respo,nse fr.om the DDA despite a
scries of reminders until March 1984, when a reply wa6
rccei ved tc the effect that the complaint affj other reninders
sent by thE Commission had nor been received at their end.
This raises doubts about the meciranisrt available for the safe
custody of the confidential records in rhe DDA. The time-lag
has also made infructuous an investigation into this old com_
plalnt.
\iijl
Cclrnmission received
(iy) Delhi
i'
I
l-
-.
7
State Jndustrial Dev. Cupn.-Jlne Commission
itad occasion to view with great concern some of lhe activjties
of the Delhi State Industrial Developrnent Corporation whicb
carne to its notice durilg the course of the last few years. hr
the instances studied by the Commission, the Corporation
secnr€d to have thrown to the winds al,rnosi all norms of
elementary prudence and accountability expected in a com_
mercial organisation having the responsibility of planning and
executing costly commerci al and devetopmental projects. Before
undertaking a project, no feasibility studies of any kind were
no feld surveys made for locating availability of
".Tt"."t{,
tcchnically competent, financially sound and ,"liubi" manu_
factrnerslsuppliers and no selection procedure whatsoever
follow€d to ensure screening out of dubious parties and larnqs_
sing the best available talent. io the maximum ben€fit of
the
public undertaking, Undu€ favours seemed fo have been
shown
s/3 CVC/84-3.
23
unknown crederfials and
to arbitrarily selected ' parties of co'ngessions
to them
and
:*:i3
unauthorised financial bencfits
at varlo'us-stages of
at sreat financial risk' Crucial decisions
therofor
ii."t*or**,"tt* ot tre prqeq* *d
in an
'ryllgT
on record
ill or wore placed
rosult
inevitable
Tbe
**ti*acto* *t*tt'
;r'"Jm;tetl^
Corpo'rabe
]*Y
""4
and heary
T
$,as the failure of the projects
irregularities
gross
the
. :"tl3i m
Ttl'....thu interest
tion. Even after
little
- in brincinc
;;;;t "r." to light, ths authorities showed
promptty pursuing tr'" o'scilinarvlttil"l:: 1T:,'Tl
were either not r€corded at
nooi' By the time preliminary invcstimost or 1tue ening offcials were
-Xlt.it?'iJi'*"*-o"t.,ota,
-already
and against those
'ha ctrilrv ofrcials to
i"""O"r""i"""
left the Corporation
reluctant t'o..act' despite the
rvho remained, tfre Corporation was
cases
;;;;tt"t"
advice' Summaries of a
few
illustrative
cxamined are glven below :
(A) Acguisition of a processing plnnt
TdeDelhiStatelndustrialDevelopmentCorporation..had
Centie at R*ok Road' New
iroen running a Common Facility
In Januhry'
was managgd by a cooperativo society'
Delhi which
^nro**t
the Centre
at
complex
textile
atot s"tting up
,iii, .
utu was that a (textile) pro-
;;-;;,"d bv DSIDC' tti and addod th:, Centre at a
pfant might be acquired
.ateeltfmeot to
"essing
-rr, '*"", n". e t"fm, as a supplement{
Centre' But
the
at
"1
sizjng plant iready available
ti" .*tt-e
anv cffort
p,slpc
not-make
did
il";; itpig*""tttg tno pooit"t,
o-u1 an-ele.cution schcdule
workaue pr*,
;;-;;;pa.;
-oi*"rit"
"ntrt
for diffe'rent
" responsibilitres ot specific
u"oi
part
essential
the'
aspccts of implementation' Since
;;t-;;J
-e
the
processing
;=t ;-."p.;; was the-acquisition of ,a purchasePlantt
of
stores
procedures for
*"U-t"o*n prescribed
^
to
followed wluch was not done' Thus no
,i tufa- ftou" t
tbele
t""a"tt t". purchase of the plant were invited nor was
technially competelt and fnanciglly
il-;tG eiploratioo ofplant.
The co<perative society which
.'or1nO r"ppfio of the
the Common Facililv Centre was sekctod for
;;;*ilrtg
26
running the processing plant also without ensuring availability
of tecldcal know-how. Disregardirng all these add similsr
other preliminalf prccautioas, DSIDC ofrcials contacted a
Bombay frrm through the said co-operativc society and placed
orders for the supply of the processing plant ot the firm by
nraking an advancc payment of about Rs, 97,000. Apart
from the fact tlrat thcrc is nothing on record to show the
DSIDC's satisfaction as to thc technical and financial sountlness of the suppllng firm, thc order placed on the firm was
also seriously defective inarmuch as there wcre no conditions
spcifrcd therein at to the timo framc within which supplies
werc to be made and as tc the penal responsibility of the
suppliers in case of failure 1o fulfill all their conrratual
obligations etc. As a result, the processing plant was supplied
by the firm in piece-meal ovcr an inordinately long period of
11 months. After thc receipt of the plant in several instalments it could not-be assembled and installed because the supplying fum did not ftrrnish any lay-out plan nor driC it otherwise
help DSIDC to instal and commissior thc plant and finally
virtually backed out of the contract. No action to enforce the
contractual obliptioas o1 thc supp,lying f.rm war takcn or could
possibly be taken by DSIDC. On the other hand. the co_
operative society who werc to manage the processing plant also
sho*ed its total inability to do anything about the installatjon
of the plant and did not show any interest in retrieving tho
project. After some discussions as to the further course of
action, DSIDC fiaally decided in lvlay 197g, ro sell ofi the
plant. There is no indication till today whether atleast rhis
decisisn to dispose of the plant was promptly implemented by
the Corporation or whetber the plant has tren allorved to tre
reduced to idle scrap.
When the matter was first grgughl
Commission
16 the
notice
in March l98e by NIDC, the Commission
of
tho
fouud
that the case had not becn satisfactorily anatlse4 by the Corporation. A self<ontained notc narrating full facts .in chronolog_
cal order was not supplied; the rules. re€ulations, instructions
27
of the Corporatl@
and powers of different concerned ofrcers
commissious of
ancl
wcre not mentioned and lapdes, oanissions
the DSIqg
After
individual officers were n;t pin-pointed'
investipreliminary
tt the Coomissioo to ao proper
;;'J;
the
these defrciencies in theil reference'
oorion *o u, to *.*"
prelimioary
"d.rp"*f"" t'oof o.atly three years to send- thedeflcie$t in
i"""litg;G *e""' iuen tbis reitott was foutrdsougitt as to tbe
respects and some clarifrcations were
clarffica'
"rtaio
o""tiil u"ii* against the defaultiug officers' These
delaycd
and
pcolongedthe
Durine
n.n"t'*pputa.
il;-;;
to
como
had
oncers
who
all
the
l.rU.ioaty investigations,
no
iCu.".. ooti"" io ttr-is case had left the services of DSIDC and
action was Possible against them'
(B\ Exryrt ol Steel
lo Dubai'
Durine 1976, DSIDC undertook export-.of steel fdl
within
all
at
did
activitv
p*"ry
trading
Ir iii.iuir"l-it-ir,it
tlte
to
activities assigled
itr* powi"* of the ievelopmental
-underfaken
the activity, instead of
i"aionti"". But, having
it to lhe best public intert, the -export traasactio[s
"r".otiog
it'r qo"ri* were handled in a grossly negligent, casual aud
below :
q uestonable manner, Three typical instances are noted
,
28
order for 15650 tonnes of mild steel was
taken up and arrangemetrts to procure this steel
werc'made with a privato trading flrm' The firm
failed to fulfl its contractual obligations and the
Corporation had to anange the suppty undertake!
by it with the help of Indian Iron and Steel Company and, for this, extra cost had to be incuted.
Arrd yet, suppties wer€ apparently not according to
the specificutions of the buyer who did not acrcpt
the consignments. The CorPoiatior had to sell ofi
the entire stocks lying at Dubai, incurring heavy
lo*cs.
(x) An export
'
(y) In
another similar contract, agajn with a private
firm, for
steel for export by the Corporation, no' perfo'rmance guaraflte€ was obtained from
ths private firm. As against the roquisite security
&posit of Rs. 5.26 lakhs, only Rs. 25,000 wcre
taken. On the firm's failure to fulfil its contractual
obligations, the security of Rs. 25,000 was refunded
and supplies were aranged through Indian Iron and
Steel Company at an extra cost of several thoueasds
of
rupees.
{z) A
supply of 374 tonnes of milcl steel to a Dubai
party was lxocured from Indian Iroa and Stcel
Conrpany but the stores s€nt did not apparently
meet the buyer's specifications and werc rejected.
Tlre Ccrporation had to sell off tho stocks at lhrbai
at h€aw losscs.
It is not knolm how thc private firms Ior pro<,uring st,:el
for export were selecied by the Corporation. l{o tenders were
called and there is no record to show that the ofticials of the
Corporation made arny effort to satisfy thenselves or, the comof the selected firms to fulfil the reqriisite supplias. No
proper contracts to bind the parties to defni:e conditions
(including penalties on faiiure or delay to fulfil contractual obli_
gations) seem to have been drawn up. In one of the
tralsactions
gven the pre-export inspection clause was waivetl.
The buyers'
confidence was not kept by. sending them tirnely intimaiic,ns
of progress. All the crucial decisrons in regard to these export
transactions were ap,parently taken at the highest Ierel in
the
Corporation but no proper records of the decisioDs and the
justifications therefor were kept. A situation
of tcta,l confuslon
difiusion
of
resporuibility
g
was
allowed
to prevail with
94ing
the result that durirg the investigations ;t was not possible
to
fix precise responsibility orr the C.orlnration,s ofrcials for
fuo.:ling at.various stages. These transactions not only rgsulted
in losscs of several lakhs of nrpees to the Coqroration but also
petence
29
harmed the Corporation's creditnlitv
in the international export
malke-1
(C)
Exryort oJ lertYcans
sulply of 27'040 ienycans
Statq Trading Corporatioo
&e
bV
worth Rs. 12.5 lakhs required
Ia 1974, IEC had undertaken
approved
i"i in" putp*. of export, The Corporation-had
1o
of thpse items and it
unrt on'tn"i, list for the manutacture
manufacturer
was nec€ssal:y to procure a competeot and reliable
.
did
to fulfll tbc export commitrncnt' Howwot, th€ Corporatioil any
made
haw
to
;r;;t" any Lnoer notice or do $ot sesm
A
other efforl to identify and select suitable nanufacturers'
the
local private par1y seems to have svo noto ap'proached
who readily concludd a contract with the paxry
Ctrr*rutioo
It was agreed
.. [f* Uolt of its singlc unsolicited quotation'upto
limit of
Li iL* cotporation to supply raw matcdal of amachinery
n. On" talctr on credit against the hypothecati-au
o[ the value of Rs. 1.5 takh* apProxirratcly' ln actual prectice'
frr*"u.r, this credrt limit was not oboerved and the credit
lakhs were
supplies of raw matenal to tho extont of Rs' 3'82
without
and
manner
unsuthorised
party
in
an
*oO" to thc -additional
capacity
pa'rty,
whaso
The
security.
eny
"btuinlog
supply
hacl not*bccn propcrty a.sscssed beforrc cntcring into the
decisioa
a
jerrycans
and
contract, failef to-supply the required
was taken by the Corporatioa to take ovcr the- nranufacturing
gttu ihit doiuioo *as not properly followed up ancl
""it.
was le{t unimplcmented' During tho course of these dealings
with thc privatc party, thc Corporatioo officials unautboriiedly
allctted two factory sheds .to the party and cnnni'/ed at urtarthori$cd occupation of somp more shed* by the party' By the
ti&e thc ruettc; fifft came to thc aotioe ol the Commission in
1982 thlough a CBI investigation rcport' 6 out o{ 8 oflicers
rasponsiblc for onc or rroro of tlrc incautaities had already
leti the Corporation and werc bcyold thc reach. of any disci
piinary action. In Novernbor, 1982, th- o Comnission advlsed
major- pcnalty proceedingo against thc two lemaining ofrcers
30
and.reiterated its advice in March 1983 reiecting the Corporatirrn's plea fcr closing the case on reconsideration' as no fl€w
cited in support of the proposal
. facts.a'nd circumstandx were
'for drop4rirrg the case. Disregarding Coomission's adlice, the
DSIDC closed the case against the officcn.
' (v)
Minisrry of External Affaits '-Ir' 19'19, the Conmissior had advbed maior penalty procecdings against an Assistaht
on the chatge of hrs having acquired assets disproportionate
to bis known sources of incorne during his posting at Indian
Embassy, Moscow. After exchange of correspoardence spanning
a perioai of three years wit6 the Ministry of External Afiairs,
trhe Commission was informed in October 1982, that the
discrplinary authority was the Cabinet Secrttariat from whete
the oliicer wos, on deputation. to the Ministry of Ext€.$al
Affairs. The Cabinet Secrctariat merely mfornred tho Commissron that no previous palrrs werc available on the subjecl
Tbe Comrnission's advice remained unimplenrented for about
fve years as the exact Department to which the nfficial belonged
could not be deternrircd. In July, 1984, the Commission was
told that the Intelligence Bureau was t}|c parent departrnent of
the deliaquent officer. The Fapprs had been passod on to them
for appropriate action. The Intelligencc Bureau are yet to issue
a
charge-sheet
to the
officer.
l,ri) Food Corporation of kdia-Ia 1983, the Food Corporatiol of India (FCI) sought the Comrnissi.in's advice ia
fespe{t of the alleption against an Assistuct Engineer on
deputation with them from CPWD that he had issued incorrect
ccmpletion certificate regarding the construction of godo*n by
a Fivate party. The FCI, however, omitted to malce any
reference about the functional responsibility and the lalxes on
and adnrinistrative
'pflicers rvho were more directly involved.
the part of other very senior engineerirg
' The Commission had noted from the papers that as per
the *scheme floated by thc FCI, private parties could raise thc
conlti\,lction of godown5 as pcr the spccifi.cations prescribed
3l
by. the FCI. Foil tb propoeed codruc*firr4 tbe pa*ies could
.ut *itt loans from nouonalispd bast$ at cocssional rate$'
t, As per the terms of agreemmt concfudgq with the FCI, the
by, ihe engineersod; construotion rrork was to bo supeevlsed
colstnrctior
said
tb9
for
responsibflE
lng sra.f and tbe overall
'
**t l ..tt with Regional Maaager aad Divisional Manager'
o* construction, the said godowas w'ere hted by FCI tor a
-guaratrteed period of 3 to 5 years' In fie imtant cis, fhe srte
ias inspected by a Committee of thee offioers of FCI comp*i"g Depuiy trlanaget (Eaginering), Divisional Manager
"t Managrr (Stores). The Assistalt Managcr ivas
La O"poty
the
nd, associateO uith the Committee. After the inspection ot
the
slte, the agreernent with the pflvle pafly was signed by
tbe
Seaior Regional Malagsr. The site plan was agnoved by
Engileer'
As'ristant
tho
by
y
cbccked
od,
.Deputy Manager and
nAdtieAtv, the Assistaot Engigeer during the supervision of
thc constnctior had pointed out to the party that the plinth
of the godorrn was ot 2 feet but only 1* fcet' There is
on record a letier from the Zonal Manager addressed to the
that
Senior Regional Manager, whtct,, intet aliq m6afslgd
siace the plinth of the godown was ltr feet below the highest
flood 1*ve1, the possib,ility of the godown heing flmded could
not be ruled out. He had also stated that thc initial seleotion
of the site had been incorect and respoasibility for such
selection rvould be fxed separatety; but thr; F-CI were legally
bouBd to take over the godovm. r\s a satety mea$re, it was
sugjqest€d by him to ptgvide at least 2 feet high. barrier on all
the do€ts of entrance of the sodoryl-n in the shlpe of rarntrx, in
' brick maeonry which the pri'v"ate party had asreed to get doneThe $bnior Regionril: Mrinager was, aocordingly; advised to take
over the possession of the gddovm imm€diateli. This tretter was
forwarded to the Distlict ManAgeI with the direction that the
go{ovlt be takeo. over after obtaining a completion certifrcate
frogl..tle Deputy Man?ger (Engine€tiry).
.
)L'
is on thc basis of these directions that the Assistatlt
was com'
Eactneer apDeared to have certified that the godon'n
that
proviso
pf"i.-ut p"i'tn" FCI speci0catiou' But he ad-ded a
. It
taking ovor was subiect to a'2 fee! barrier <ra all
tir" doo.t' -entrice of the godovn ir the. ;liape of ramps in
brick masonry. The District Manager took o1e1- the godown
as per thc. a-foro'nrentioned direction of the Zonal Manager'
irc *tua
The aforesaid facts would reveal tbat tlle case was not
cxamined and reported to tbe Commissirrn in a proper Pcrsin that lhe responsibitities of all the senior ofncers
pective
-*-ere
totally glossed over and a tagmentod cas€ agpinst -the
junior mosi fu"er, who ap'parently funciioned uder crders'
*at .ofv maOe i. The Co'mmissiol has, therefore, ent(usted
the case to the CBI for looking into the iolc of atl the officers
who were associated with tho case rigbt fiom the stage of the
selcction of the site till the actual ta cing over of the godown'
Ministry ol Home Affrirs.-*ln the Annual Confidcntial
nepit5 for the years l9't3 to 19'17 of a Dep'ut,v Ditector in
itr" Co.*ittion for Scheduled Cast€s 'rnd Scheduled Ttiber'
:ertarn specific adverse';ntries werc recorded and these were
dulv communiita ted to the officer' In regalrl to the adverse'
,.**kt pertaining to the years 1973 ta 1976, the olBcer had
and
representgd but, his representalions were not fully accepted
repcrts
were
ial
*ort of the adverse entries rn these confldsrrt
confirmed. The officer thereupon filed a memorial . to thc
'Fresident in regard to the adverse entries pcrtair'ing to tho
ycius 19?3, 197 4 and' 19?5. The Comtrrission observes that
eve1l though this mernorial of the offflcer was clearly time-barred
in terms of tiP&AR's instructions on tLc subject, r"ide
No.2l0ll/l/77-Estt. A dated 3O-1-1978, the Ministry of Home
A{Iairs entertained the illemorial. The Co'mmission furthcr
observes that the memorial under couideratiol of tlre Ministry
did - not represent against adverse entries pertaining to the
yearc 1976 arrd 1979 and yet the Ministry of Home Affairs
iccided to expunge all the adverse entries in atl the confidertia'l
(rii)
.'.'
for the years 1973 tD 197?. Over and above these
gross procedurql irregrdarities, the Commission noies with
(€gret rhal reasons gives for exFroction of these remarks
were
bumanitarian grounds and the tota,tity of thc circumstanceei df
the case. The remarLs were not expunged oB consideratios of
thcir merit which should have been the main criterion for
dealing with such rernarks. The orders passed by the Minisay
of Horne A,ffairs also convey a defiaite impression thet the
remarks for the years t973-7j were expuuged mainly for tbe
purpose of ensuring promgtiotr to the ofrced tc the higher post
of Director. Soon ajter the expunctitr of all the advene eutries
for tbe years 1973 to 1977. the ofrcer was in fact promoted.
The Commission is of the opinion that expunction of adverse
entries from the Annual Confdential Reports fol(owed by the
promotion of the ofrcer in the manner <lcs,Jribed above is a
clear case of showing undue favour by the Home Ministrv to
tl,e Deputy Director.
reporrs
(viii) Incone Tax.-Ia January, t979, the
Com.mission
advised the irnlnsition of a major penalty on an Assistant
Comuissioner of Incomc-tax. The charges proved against the
ofticer during the inquiry which related to his functioning
an Incomc-tax Officer, were that:-
(i)
as
to iaquire into ttre source of investment by paxtners of a partiodar' firm ;
he had failed
(ii)
he had failed to obtarn proof regarding the age of
a minor, before acccpting the status of the firm as
registerod, although the minor could not be a full_
fledged partncr il the firm, and hence the frm could
rot be registered; and
(iii)
he had ante-dated an order.
.
lVhen, for quite somc time, no action was taken by the
Central Boald of Djrect Taxcc (CBDI) in prrsuance of this
advice their attenrion was invited to the delay. The CBDT
hfurmed the {ommissioa in August, 1982, that one of the
34
the
J':l':t:l
9fw6re
- l:9 T'LtrJ*Tfrt".ti;'['J
not reaoY
the UPSC
theit
t1
D"puu*"nj
Tlouble
this exhibit. While askrng it'"
the Commission also
ellorts lo locate tle *"id";;;nu'
Eventually' the
er h i birs
cas"e
to fix responfibililt iot iis loss' without taking
1983'
upsc tcndered ti'"i, uav'J ilEottq'
the charge against
t"rai"g
inro account tlre.missing eJnluit,
the ollcer as not established'
adviscd them
lhe Commissionof
In July, 1984, tbe Dellartment informecl
in view
and
traced''
that the missing exhibrt #; ;tt
^t1ut
io fix responsibility
thi; positiori, it was rrot t"*ia"t"a desirable
samc'
. tor rnisPlacing the
recounted above' it will b€
From the chronology of events
erbibit in
p'r'ssibility.
seetr that thele was u *t'*g
:Pthe
'*:someone with
misplaced by
cueslion had been deliberatelf
F:#:iFirq:n":*a;.'.::;:tTi;,^lt"5i'":,ff :'il
docunert had nQw been
this
exoneration of the oflicer, only str€ngthens
-imprcssion'
not consider it neccssary to
Neveriltetess. the Depafrment do
the material tjme'
n" t"-p""tilfi;f to. ti" loss of the exhibit at
'otr! by the Chief
(ix) The intensrve exanrination carried
Cognission into
t..ftni.uf Examiner's Wing (CTE) of th1
colonv for
housing
a
of
;J';,nik Jating to the cinsiuction
(IFCI)
India
of
ii" ti"n "r the I'ndustriat Finance Corporation
deficiencies
certain
l[h1
New Delhi, brought to
"i-p"*tti.p"ti,
of the said work' It w*s Iountl that the consexesution
in the
i*t!ott, as a rrhole, was substandard, trxrssibly due to use of
emerged
iJrtuniurO constructron materials' The facts wirich
contractors
the
iarer) that certain recoveries were mado from
the CTE s
and iirat certait dues were withheld also supported
(
specifithe work h.ad not been cartied out according to
quesdon
caiions. Subscquently, it transpired that the wo$ in
Conwas actually got executed thrcugh the National Buildings
Public
rtruction Cotforation (NBCC) and it was yet ancther
UnO.ttutiog, ihe National Industrial Dcveloprirent Corporatioo
.n*,tut
35
a
(NIDC) who were the designers and consuitants
loc tho project,
oficers provided day-today supervisiou and eontrol sf
the wqrk.
u.hose
.
The question that arose was that of identifyingTassessiag the
individual and int€r-se rasimnsibilities of the ttrree public Sector
Undertakings concernod, viz., the IFCI, the NIDC and the
NBCC. OD the face of it, tbc IFCI, who was orly the client,
cauld not be blamed for any laps€s, It would ther*ore, up*ri
that,.prbw, lrcie" tbe NBCC officers were to be blarned. fo,r
c.(ecution of substandard work and the NIDC officials for
slack supervision/control and also for certifying sub*standar4
work to be true to specifications. The Co,mrrission is following
up tbe matter further with rbe NIDC q$ nlso the NBCC with ;
vjew to identifying the individua.l offioers concerned and assessrng
the lapse5 on the part of each.
This case is being reported as it is one of those typical
public Sector orga,nisations get together
a d torally abrogate responsibility.
cases where several
{x) Ministry of l4formotion and Broadcastiag.*In October
1983, the Commissioa advised injtiation of major penalty pro_
cee{ings against an Enginecr fo1 allegedly submitting - tatse
certificates regarding mainterance of double establishmints
for
the pufoses of claiming daily a.llowance. The tr.finistry of
Information and Broadcasting issued the chargs-sheet in iunc,
1984; when the officer hd already retired in Novernber,
19g3,
anrl the case was time-barred under the pelsioa Rules. Tho
chronological history of the case revealed that the investigation
which had commenced. in 19Tg, took flve year$ to bc com_
pleted. The DG, AJR's office did not posess
or during
investigations, obtain information about the date
of retirerDeni
of
officer which was an elementary requiremett . for
-the
decfding the schedule of investigation. Rezultantly, rhe Miilistri
did not realise tbe necessity of expediting action -in this matter.
Furtber, the Ministry of Information anj Broadcastins couid
Irot ait on the advice of the Commission conveyed in "Octob"r,
_
36
1983,
for the d6cuments/records ef ftE case, to form
the
basis of the charge-sheet, were not made available to them by
thc Director General, AIR.
Tbis is a classic case which shows the charactedsric
elemcnts of inaction a.nd lack of earnestness in the handling of
vigilance crses.
5.3
N on-acceptonce
The cases in which departmetrts have not accepted the Commission's advice are mentioned below :-
(i') Andaman & Nicobw Administration
Commission
-The
in June, 1976, advised major penalty proceedings
agairst a pdncipal of a school. The charge, prinm iacie, established against tle
principal was that he had utilize.d the services of Class IV employees for his personal errands. In January, 1984, the Commission was informed that proceedings against the officer had
been dropped.
On examination of the relevaat papers, it was observed lhat
the proceedings against the ofrcer were not dropped after a
formal departmental inquiry as advised; but, as a result of a review undertaken by the Chief Secretary with regard to pendency of vigilance cases. The case was dropped on the ground that
it was pending for a long lime and ndt on the merits of the case.
It is disquieting to note that a depertmental inquiry against the
oftcer could n'ot be concluded in seven years. This case is a
classic example of ihe apathetic approach of disciplinary autho,
rities to vigilance cases.
(i) Blarat Aluminium Co. Ltd.-In 1982, the Commission
advised mlinor penalty proceedings against a Superinte,ndent
on the charge that he faileC to rqport the Eact that a fim
on. rrhich substantial orders amountinq to Rs. 5.71 lakhs between
Aptit, 1974 to September, 1978, tlmrd been placed, belonged to
his wife. 18 works involving a valuc of Rs. 47,000 were award. ed rn favour of his wife's frm by the company on single tcnder
JI
42 moulds supplied by the firm found to be
and ftrlty paid for on the plea that the
accelrted
defective were
of
material consoquence.
speciflcations w€re oot
basis, In ono
case
Tho Company, horvever, sought reconsideration of the advice of the Commission, o3r the ground that there were other
similar cases where ofrcers had not reported the fact of thoir
Irssoclation with fiIol with which the Company had deating.
Tbey gave no propcr explanatioa for plaong 18 orders on single
tender basis and for the acceptance of defective material.
\[ hen llre Commicsion reitcrated its advice, tlie Company in
of the sane, dropped the case against the officer'
disregard
lttdia.---On the basis of CBI's investigation, the Commission advised major penalty proceedings
against a Branch Manager of Central Bank of fndia. The chatge
against the ofrcial was that he obtained a cheque for Rs. 2O'000
{r<im tho partner of a firm ostensibly for crediting the proceeds
to the loatr a@ount of the firm, but cashed the chegue and appropriated the proceeds himself. The Commission fould,- llat
the inluiry report iubmitted by an oficer of &e bank holding
the charge as not establi*ed, did not conlain :r coffect appr€ciation of the evidence, documcntary agd oral, produced during
the inquiry, aod accordingly advised disagreemedt with the fuding of the inquiring officer and imposition of a major penalty of
'Ihe
not less than reooval fron service on tlrc Branch Manager.
17
on
-2'1984.
to
lower
a
bank, however, demoted the ofrcer
Post
Before his retirement n 29'2'1984, the officer preferred an ap-.
peal dated 23-2-1984 against the order of the disciplinary authority, The appellate authority spt aside the orders of the disciplinary authority and exonerated the ofrcer of all the charges.
As. h result, a guilty ofrcial egninst whom the charge of misappropriation of a substantial amount belonging to an ac@uDt
holder was considgred to have been established went unpunished.
(iii) Cental Bank of
(iv) Dewtment ol CoaI.-InMay,
I984,hhe Department of
Coal had furnished a Fnel of names of five ofrcers beloneing to
A11 India Services, for appointment of Chief Vigilance Officers
38
I
in tluee coal companies, vir. Western Coalfields Ltd., Central
Coalfelds Ltd., and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The Commission
approved ofrcers individually for each company, after due consultation with the Deptt. of Coal, It was also clarifled to the
D€partmert &at the approval of the Commission was specific
lo each company and if they wanted any change in the approval
conveyed by the Commission, they should re-refer the entire pro.
posal relating to all the three companies for consideration and
advice. The Department, however, without consulting the Commission, reverse.d the postings of the oftcere approved for ap
pointment as Chief Vigilance Offioers in Central Coalfields Lttt.,
and Western Coalfields Ltd. In otJrer words, the ollicer approved
for appointment in Westren Coalfieldq Ltd., was directed to join
as Chief Vigilance Ofrcer in Central Coalfields Ltd. asd vice
r:erto. It was brought to the notice of the Deptt. that these
posting did not have the approval of the Central Vigilance C.ommissioner and that these officers would not be recognised as
Chief Vigilance Ofrcers of the organisations to which they had
been posted by the Deptt. but the Deptt. has done nothing to
rectify the situaion so far.
(v) Ministry of Communication.*Ttrc Commission had advised major penalty proceedings against an ofrcer on the chdrge
of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a
private contractor fof, runiring 'a cycle stand in rJre hospital with_
out payment of licence fee etc.
In the departmental inquiry the
charge as ftamed was not
established. The Inquiry Offiser was of the view that the morive
fo,r the demand of bribe was nof established. The Inquiry Officer
has also pointed out that there was no occasi,on for the demand
to be made fiom the private party by the officor concerned. The
motrey wa$ found lying on the f,oor in heapc and the Inq uiry
Ofrcer was of the view that it was in the process of pushing the
currency notes that contact was es'tablished with the hauds of
lhe officer concerned. The Commission, however, on careful
39
.
examination of the inquiry r€Port felt that there was su$cient
widence available on tecord in support of the charge. Thc mo6ve apparently was that tle ontractor watrted to run the stand
without payrneot of licence fee. It s'as the evidence of tle complainant conohrated by the panch witness that the ofrcer when
origodly accosted did not accept the money as it was less than
the demand made by him. Later when the complainant approached the charged officer by himse4 the delinquent officer blamed
bim for brinsng a witness. This particular aspect was also supported by the panch witness. It was only wbile counting the currency obtes that the ofrqer became suspiciouJ qbout the powdery
sudace and threw them away. The solution went pink when the
in it. By virtue of the preponderance of probability, the charge of demand and acceptance of
-bribe was held as proved. The Commission accordingly recommended disagreement with the rE o,rt of the Inquiry Officer aqd
the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service on the
delinquent officer. The Ministry of Communication, in disregard
of this advrce, dropped the proceedings against the officer.
charged officer's hand was dipped
(tti) Controller
General o! Delence Accounrs.---:fhe Conof
General
Defence
Accounts investigated certain allegatroller
Officers and fnding the allegations,
two
Accounts
tions against
prima frcie, established, recommended the institulion of majot
pemlty proceedings against the officers. In the formal inquiry
iharges of unauthorised use and occupation for residential pur=
poses of Government office accommodation were held. as proved
against the ofrcers. It was 'also establishei[ &at while the ofrcers
paid no retrt for this accommodation, tbey claimed house rent
allorvance after pertifying tlat Government had not provided
them accommodation.
Since the officers had retired
by that time, the Commission
rdvised a suitable cut in the pension of tbese officers. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, hourever, after considerable delay, closed the case against the officers.
4A
(v)
Customs & CentraJ Excise.-In Septembei 19?8, th9
Cornmission advised the imposition of major penalties on f our
Superintendents and seven Inspectors of Centrcl Excise after
they were found guilty of issuing false certificates iir certain cases'
After more than 4 years (in October, 1982) , the Departrnent
requested reconsideration of the Commission's advice, on the
plea that the charges against the officers were not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. This reference cf the Department had to be
returned 1o them as it did not have the approval of tJre prescribed
authority as laid down in the Vigilance Manual. Thereafter,
the case was refbrred back to the Commission with the approval
of the competent authority, and the Commission reiterated its
earlier advice on the grourid that the standard of proof required
in domestic enquiries was prepondcrance of probability only
and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. On a further reference
ieceived from the Department in August, 1983, the Commission
once again reiterated its advice. The Department, however,
pa-ssed orders in March, 1984, completely exonerating two of the
offir:ials and awarding a mere minor penalty to a third official,
thus, clisregarding the advice of the Commission.
lncidenlally, this case was included in the Annual Reports
of the Commission for 1982 and 1983 as one of the badiy delayed cases.
{viii) Delhi Ad.ministstion -In November, L982, the Commission had advised initiation of major penalty proceedilgs
against an Executive Engineer on the charge of having caused
undue favour to a private party in the natter of purchase of steel
worth more than Rs. 5 lakls. Although the case was followed up
with p€rsistent reminders, yet the officer was allowed to retire
rvithoui any attempt being made to serve the charge-sheet on
him. Action under the Pension Rules also became time-barred
due to the application of the four-year limitation clause.
I
s/3
(\IC/84-4
4t
(ix) Delki
Ad.ministratipn
Qsmmi.ssion
had
advised
-!!s
imposition of a majoi penalty upon a iunior Engrneer for viola-
tion of ruies in exceeding his authority. Tho discipliilary authority, however, il disregard of the advice of the Commission'
merely censured the oftcial.
Commission had advised
Adminktratil>n
-The
and an Assistant
Inspector
an
proceedings
against
penalty
major
official position
dreir
abused
for
having
Police
of
Commissioner
private
person by way
to
a
har4s$ment
and conniled in causing
his unwattantcairsing
and
him
aqainst
of institution of a false case
on 30th
retire
to
due
was
ed arrest. Since the Inspector
instructions
given
spcifrc
had
September, 1983, the Commission
.for cnsuring that the charge-sheet be issued to the oflicers immediately, The charge-sheet was s€rved upon the ACP by the
Chief Secretary who was the disciplinary authority in his case' No
charge-sheet was served on the Inspector. It was reported to thc
C'ommission oD 28th Septernber, 1983. that as per the Discipline
and Appeal Rulas applicable to the Inspector' charge-sheet was
to be served by the Inquiry Officer. In vrew of the urgency inu
volved in the matter, the Commission forthwith nominated another olicsr of the Comnission ( available in station 6n that very
day) for serving the ohargc-sheet on the Inspector before bis rctirement. The ACP (Vigilance), Delhi Police was also adviscd
.verbally by the Commission for ensuring that the charge-sheet
(x) Ilelhi
was duly
served.
Despite the efforts made by the Commissicn and tbe specific
advice given to the Delhi Police for taking timely action, the
charge-sheet could not be served upon the In$pector' and the
case was alloved to go by default.
(xi) Delhi Electric Supply Uriderlaking'-Maior
penalt-v
proceedings were advised by the Commission againsl a Superintending Engineer on charges (i) of his leing in possession of
assets disproportibnate to his known sources of income; and (ii)
non-intimitoin to the iompetent authority about the partnership
of his wife in a
42
business firm.
Thc DESU, in disregard of the Commission's advice, dropp'
ed thc prooeedingg against the ofrcer after considering his de-
fence statement.
. (xii) Delhi Electric Supply Underlakirtg.-ln Novembcr,
1981, the Comrussiou advised maj<-rr penalty prcceedings against
lwo ollicers on the charge of having shown undue favour to a
pflvate party in placing an order for supply of stationery by interpotating tender documents.
The Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking did nor initiate proceedings against the officers even though sufficienl evidence was
available to support the charges.
Delhi Milk Scheme (DMS).-The Dtlhi l\4ilk
Scheme initiated major penalty proceedings against a manager
1.a11;,)
relating to
(i)
irregnlanties ldiscrepancies in the
maintenance of miik and other records, thereby causing pecuniary
loss to the DMS, and (ii) failure in exercise of proper check
on
charges
control over the funqtioning of his subordinates which
in many irregularities ]discrepancies. Alongwith him,
crrtain other junior officials were also procecdcd against. The
Ccnrmission's fi-rst stage advice was not obtaincd. The inquiry
against the manager was conducted by an o{tcer of the DMS.
When the case at the 2nd stage was examined by the Commission, it was found that only charge (i) was substantiated to
the exrent that the manager had not maintained the records of
rhc 'nrlk collcction and chilling centrs proFeriy. Accordingly,
impcsition of a minor penallv of censure was advised against
aiti
resulted
the
afiicer.
The DMS, horvever, in disregard of tte adyice of the
Commission, dropped the proceedings a.gninst thc officer.
(xiv) Delhi State Industrial Developme t Coryoration
(DSIDC).-The CBI made in..'estigation into allegeil irregularities in the procurement ol 27,OOO jerrycans worth Rs. 12.5
lakhs rcquired by the State 'frading Corporation {or erporr.
43
As a result of this investigation, 8 officers of thc DSIDC were
fountl responsible for.showing undue favours to the contractors
by piacing order on them without any tender and alio*'ing them
thelre.dit facility for supply of raw material to 4 limit excceding
that which had. been agreed to. It rvas noted that six of lhe
8 ofrcers involved in the case had by then left the Corporation'
The Commission, therefore, advised maior penalty proceedings
agailst the remaining two offcers. This advice was rciterated
in March, 1983. The DSIDC, however, closed the case against
these two officers in disregard of the Commission's advice.
(xv) Dtpartmenr of Economic Afiairs'-A dopartmental
inqury was held against a senior officer of the Ind,ia Security
Press, Nasik Road, .by one of the Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries attached/ to the Commission, on the charge
that he had exhibited gross negligence and dereliction of duty,
whiie processing certain quotations received ill respons'r lo an
NIT issued by the Press in December, 19'14, lot the supp:ly
of band roll paper; gnd that he was thus instrumental in
jeopardising the interests of tbe Fress. The Inquiry OIficer'
held tlre charges framed against the o{icer as provei and,
'on t.he basis of this report, the Commission . adviied irnposition'
of a minor penalty of 'censute' on the officer.
The Department of Economic Afiairs disagre:d with the
Conmission's advice and exonerated the oflicer.
I x.'ti) Government ol Goa, Danan & Diu.-On. the tpsis
of the Inquiry Officer's findings, the Commission in 1981 had
advised imposition of the major penalty of dtsmissal from
servicc upon a l,t:puty Superintendent of Polce. The chargp
estaLlished against the officer was that he tried to get a knowrt
smuggler released from the custody of the Customs authoritie s
by falsely showing in the police records that
the
arresled
smugglei was a police informer. To this end, he exerted pressure
on his subordinates to interpf,1/.te / f abicats the o.clice records.
The charge against the police officer was based upon striotures
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
44
The impugned order with referenco to the stricture wai set
aside by t^he- Judicial Commissioner, Goa' The Commission
was, accordingly, approached by the Governurent of Goa'
Daman & Diu to drop the proceedings against the officer on
the ground that the very basis on which the c'rarge against
the clfcer hingsd, stqod deleted'
I'he judgment of the Judici4l Commissioner was cnrefuliy
exanrjned in the Commission. It was observed that the Judicial
Commissioner had not set aside the strictures on an examination of widence but only on the grounds that these strictures
being based on prima facie finding, were premafure' On the
cthei hacd, the Inquiry Officer after examining all the relevant
orai and documentary evidence, independently c€me to a
reasox?d conclusion that the charge as framed was established'
Accordingly, it was maintained by the Commission that there
was .no justification for dropping the proceedings against the
offioci, The Government of Goa, Daman & Diu, howevel, in
disregard of the Commission's advice dropped the proceedings'
(wit) Ministr! ol
Home Affaits.--:flte Commission had
advireC major penalty proceedings against an IPS Officer of
Union 'Ierritory, Delhi, on the charge that he had released
4.95 quintals of silver seized from 2 private parties in favcur
of 4 persons who claimed to be the owners of the property
without satisfying himself about the gunurneness of the claim
as per the specific orders of the Judicial Magislrate. In the
departmental inquiry, the charge was held as not established.
The Commission after examining the evidelce led before tho
Inqu:ry Officer and the attendant circumstances of the ca-ae
cbserved thet the f,ndings of the Inquiry Officer did not flow
logically from the evidence brorght on reccrd; and that in
fact there was ovenvhclminr evidenc-.e in suppor! cf the
charge against the ofrcrr. In disagr-eement wilh th.e report of
tho lnquiry Officer, the Commission advised il,pcsition of a
malor penalty on the officer. The Departmerr'j eventually
exonerated the o-fficer i9 disregard of the Commission's advicc.
45
(xvii) Minktry ol Home Affairs.--The Comnissio{, oa the
basis o{ an investigation carried out by the Delhi Police,
reconrnended initiation of . major penalty proceedings against
a Station House Oftcer on the ground that he was respcnsible
for non-execution of an eviction decree passed by a court ln
f,rvom of a private person of &lhi. In orderio secure enforcement of the eviction decree, and since the occup€nts werc
women, the SHO was to have detailed lady pofuce on the spot.
The fact of the arrangements made for detailing tho Lady polioe
are corroborated \ the entries in the d,aily diary register of
the Pofice Station. On tle given dato, neither the Station Housg
Officcr nor the mntingent of police, as a-greetl, arnved on the
spot although the bailift and the concerned parry waited tilt
verj: late in thc night. Ths way the SHO circumvented flre
execution of the de6ce.
the charge Was held as not
the evidenrre adduced before the
Inqui+ Oftcer, the Commission observed ttat the conclusionr
arrived at by the Inquiry Officer did not logrcally flow from
the oral and the documentbry evidence on record. There was
suflfi.cient documentary and oral evidence to conclude that tlre
In the departmental iuquiry,
established. A-fter perusing
charge as framed had beea established.
Keeping in view fte gravity of misconducl on the part of
the 1riice officer, the Commission advised lhal the officer be
dismrssed from service in disagreement with the findingq . of
the Inqurry Officer.
Whereas the Ministry of Home Affairs being thc disciplinery
authority accepted the analysis of the Commission, they only
imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with
cumulative effect.
(xh) Ministry ol Ho1ne Afiatrs.-Tha Consrission
advsed imposition
16
of a nrajor
had
penalty upon a Desk Oftcer on
charges proved in a formal inquirv cf having strbstituted a note
in a filu vlrih maLa fide inlent:on, in collusion rwith another De'sk
OlEcer. The Disciplinary Authority, however, held that the
cha,-ged officer had no motive for such collusion and let him
off with a simple wilming, wfiich is not a formal penalty' in
contravention of the advice of the Commissio;t.
(xx) ltromc Ta*.-Endorsing the recommenij:ution of the
CBI ard of the Department, the Cornmissiotl adf ised on
7-5-1984 prosecution of an Assistant Controller of Estate Duty'
The cbarge against the ofRcet was that he had acquired. over a
span of abottt 22 years assets worth about Rs. 2?2'000 which
*erc far disproportionate to his knovra sources of legitimate
income . In November., 1!84, the Department intim:tted the
Commission tbat though sanction for prosecutioa of the officer
had been arcorded, the CBI had beeir asked to withitold
launching of formal pt'oceedings in the light of an applicltion
movc<i by the of0cer, in the meantirne, seeking voluntarS retir:menl from service. Tbe Commission pointed out to the
Departm€flt immdiately that prosecution of the officer need
not be kept in abey'ance pending consideration of his r^.quest
tor voluntary retirement and that the two issues, being inde,pendent of each other, need not be mixed up. The Department
were also asked to obtain the C\rmmission's advice in the matter
of ac4ting or rejecting the officer's request for retireme nt as
soon as the Department had formulated their views in the matter.
(It was not possible for the Commission to tender any specif,c
advice at this juncture as the Department's reference did not
disclose the grounds on which voluntary retirement had been
sought by tbe oftcer).
Despite all this, a communication was received in December,
1984, merely intimating that the prosecution proceedings
against the official had been dropped and" further. that he had
been allcwed to retire from service. This, thereforg has resulted
in non-implementation of the Commission's advice and alsp in
47
Don'consultation with the Commission before allowing the oficer
to retjre
voluntarily.
(xxiJ Indian
advised initiation
Oil
Corporotion,*Tbe Commi5sl6n had
of minor penalty action
against a Finaacial
Controller, a General Manager and a Deputy General Manager
(Sales) for being parties to a decision that the work of
production of the documentary flm *Safety with Cooking Gas"
and of making of its copies and dubbing, be entrusted to a
private agency and not to the Filrrs Division. According to
the investigations carried out by tlre CBI, this resultcd in alr
avoidable extra expenditure of Rs. 2 lakhs approximately. No
action could be taken against the Deputy General Manager as
he retired from service. As regards the other Deputy Geaeral
.Manager and the Financial Adviser. the Indian Oil
Ccrporation, aJt€r calling for their explanations, sought reconsideration
of the Commission's advice merely on the ground tlrat at no
stage the CBI investigation could bring out
mf,la fides on
^nyreconsideration.
the part of these two ofrcers. Though on
the Commission had agreed to the closure of the case after
issue of written warnings to them, the Indian Oil Corporation
decided to take no action against the two omcers and closed
the case.
(xxii) Irife Insr,trante Corporation of India._lt Jllte
1983, the Commission advis€d initiation of major penalry
proceedings against three officers, an Additional Zolal
Manager, Assistant Se€retary and a Building Superviror
and minor_ penalty proceedings against a Zonal Manager
in a case where a valuable piece cf builcling propBrty belonging
to LIC was susp€cted to have txaea flsudulentl.v disposea of b!
them to a favoured party for low price by various fraudufeni
manipulations at different stages of inviting and processing of
q'!'otations. In September 1983 on LIC,s request it" Corrlir_
sion agreed to separation of proceedings against the Additiofal
Zanal Manager aad ths Zonal Nlanagsr from the other two
48
junior officers. The Additional Tnnal Monager was due to
retire frorn service on 1G3-1985.
The Asslstant Secretary who was also due to. trtire on
l-12-1g84 moved the Madraq High Court and obtained interim
stay order against the oral inqurry by the CDI a1d this delayed
the conclusiin of the disciplinary proceedings almost till the
charged offcer's date of superannuation' However, the case
agaiist the Additional 7nnaJ. Maaager should have beed
finalised by the LIC, but it unnecessarily delayed
"ipeaifiousty
The Commission obsewes that its advice of June'
".iioo.
1983 for action against Additional Zonal Manager was placed
before the LIC Board after one year in June 1984' The LIC
also proposed to keep action agaiDst the Additional' Zonal
Manager in abeyance on the unjustilied ground of the High
Court's stay order in the Assistant Secretary's case. The Commission had to reiect this proposal.
The Commission was iniormed by the LIC towards the
end of 1984 that the LIC Eoard at its meeting on 8-10-1984
decided to compulsorily retire the Additional Tnnal Managet
. antl that, later on receipt of the cfrcer's reply to the showcause noti:e for his compulsory retiremeat, the Board decided
that. in view cf the officer's impending retirement in tr{arch,
1985, the penalty'of compulsory retirement be altered to one
of reduclion in pay by one step with immediate efiect, strbject,
however, to the condition that in cas6 the officer iarmediaiely
proceeds on leave prepalatary to retirement, even the latter
penalty need not be given efiect to. The inevitable resuft was
that the ofrcer immediately proceeded on leave and escape d
g:nishmeni.
.
Action of minor penalty proceedings advised against the
Zonal Manager was also not taken by the LIC and, witlout
consulting the Commission in any manner, the LIC decided not
to lake any actian against the Zonal Manager.
It will thus be, secn that (i) the LIC delayed the dccision
on the case against the Additionat Zonal Mmger inor.diaately
almost till the time of his superannuation, (ii) it disregarded
the Commission's advice of holding regular majorlminor
penalty proceedings against the suspected officers on specifc
charges of misconduct, and (iii) it also did lot c.are to consult
the Cornmission either at the time of proposing compulsory
rotirement of the Additioral Zonal Managel or later while
dtopping the idea of taking any action against the two officers.
The Commission records its strotrg disapproval of the .enlire
procedure adopted by the LIC in this case.
(xxiil) Mining & Altied Machinery Corpn. Ltd.-loacurring
n,ith the reconrmendation of the Disciplinary Authorify, .the
Comnission advised in September, 1979, initiation of mat:r
penalty proceedings against a senior officer of the Corporation.
The charge against the officer rvas that he had altelnpted to
get a cheque (for Rs. 6000f000) signed by one of the trustees
cf the Conrpany's Provident Fund, with a vjew to misappmpriat*
ing the proceeds of the same. Although the charge was held
as not proved in the departmental inquiry that followed, the
Commission found that the Inquiry Ofrcer's findings wero based
on wrong premises and that there. lvere, in fact, strong evidences
to hold the charge as proved. Disagreeing with the I.O's report,
the Commission, therefore, advised in February 19_81, imposition
of a major penalty on the officer. This advice was reiterated
b;' the Commission in Juue 1981, on a reference received from
the MAMC suggesting a lesser punishment to the ofrcer.
Eventually, however, the MAMC did not impose any penalty
on the officer and closed the case on the groud that the charge
had not been proved.
(t:iv)
Municipal Corporotion
ol Delhi.-ln April, 1.97g,
the Commission sought a report from MCD on a complaint that
an Assistant Engineer had demanded illegal gratification ftom
a private @ntractor for pa.ssing his bill for payment. Despite
persistett reminders, no reply even by way of acknowledgcment
,50
complaint was received from MCD' In Februag!
thc
1984, i.e. afte, a lups" of about six years from the date
d
irrforme
was
matter lvas ref erred to tle tllCp, the Commission
that the original reference was not traceable' The Commissitrn'
accordingly, advised the MCD to fix the regpon+bility for thc
loss of confidcntial papers. It was reported that no actiorr was
possible at that belated stage as tbe Asstt' D'irector of Vigtlance
*ho * rnainly responsible for the loss of papers 'had rctired
of tbe said
fiom
service.
(xxv) Narional Seeds Corporation.-The Comrnission in
1983, on the basis of the Inquiry Offtcer's findings, advised
imposition of a major penaltl on ao Accountant of the Corpo-ratlon, on the charge of having caused undue pecuniary ailvanterge
to a private party by way of accepting sub-standard suppli:s
of 30 Tarpaulins and also for n'aving made rvrong payments of
Rs. 2170 tD th,r party orving to non-verif,cation of tlie !te;n
with reference to the supply oider.
The Corporation, in disregard of the Commission's advice'
inrposed only the minor penaity
with cumulativc efect on the
of
stoppage
of
one incrernent
offtrcer.
(x-r';i) New Delhi Municipal Committee.--:lhe Chief Technical Examfuer had carried out the intensive inspection of the
construction of Indoor Swimmrng Pool at Talkatora Gardens
for the Asian Games 1982 by the NDMC. The work was
cxecuted through a consultant who had been selected oo thc
basis of 6 comPtition.
Due to inaccuracies in the designs prepared by the consultant,
srvimming pool wnicn was to be a, covered cne had
to be finally converted into an open type of swimming pool
rhe
thereby resulting
in avoidable expenditure of about Rs. 29 lakhs
in tbe manufacturing of roofing e'lements. The various
discrepancies notic€d in the design prepared by the coosultant
spent
had been brought to the notice of NDMC and the Ministry of
Works & Housing. NDMC had also been advised to afiect
51
'
recoverieg
from the architeetural consultant {ar
his
failure to
out the work as per the terms of the agreement, In
addition, *re department was asked to take approlxiate action
agaiast the engrneering staft who failed to exercise proper
supervision for epsuring the -compliance with the terms of the
agreement by the architect/consultant. Whereas NDMC is
laking action for effecting recoveries from the cc;:sultant, they
caf,ry
have pointed out that no action is called
for against the engineer-
ing stafi as they had to.get the project completed lvithin a
qpecified time frame. This way the advice of the Commission
has not been complied with partly.
(xxvii) Posts & Telegruphs.-The Comrnissio4 advisrd
idtiation of minor penalty proceedings dgainst an Assistanl
Engineer in May, 7982, on the ground thaf he failed to examine
the ile pertaining to refund of security deposits to unsuccessful
tenderers carefully and circumspectly,
After a lapse of more than t'flo years, the Departmeat
infor[ed the Cornmission in June 1984 that the formalities
comected with the issuance of charge-sheet to the conc.ertred
officer could not be finalised in time. As a consequence of
rhis, the Deptt. could only issue a non-recordable warning to
the offcer on thg el'e of his superanauatica. The examination
of the Department's file revealed that the charge-sheet could
rot be served on the offcer as for a very long time his whereabouts w:ei:e not knor',rn. Later action could not be taken due
to the fact that tlle vigilance file became untraceable. Thc
inordinate delay leading to the non-implementing of the advjcc
of the Comrnissicn is not considered justifable.
(xxviii) Posls & Telegraphs.-Tlte Commission had advised
initiation of major penalty proceedings against nine oficjals
in regard to the allegation of misappropriation of valuabla
pt'opery by forgery etc. The Commission subsequeatly,
.on
reconsideration, revised the recommendaticn in resrect of one
offcial and suggested initiation of minor'penalty proceedings
against him.
52
The department, however, implernented the advice of tl're
Commjssion for major penalty action in reqpect ol five nongazetled officials but, did not take action against the other fonr,
two of whom were gazetted ofrce$.
(xxix) Posts
&
T elegraphs.-Jhe
Commission after consi-
deration of the report of the CBI and the department's cornrnents
thereon reommended major penalty proceedinfr against a
Divisional En gineer, Telecommunication, a Sub-D ivisieinai Ofiicer,
Telecommunication, a Junior Engineer and a Store Lineman io
respect of certain serious irregularities with regaql to purchase
of leather bags for use by tle staff of the P&T D:partment.
The department sought reconsideration of the advice of the
in so far as it related to the Divisioral Engine;;r.
Telecommunication. The substance of the case forming the
basis of the charges against tle officials was that bags of the
speciication and the quanlity other than that indleated in the
supply order had been aocepted by these officers. The bills
were signed by the Divisional Engineer, Telecommunication.
This clearly revealed that he was also responsible for not having
verified properly that the supplies so made by the firm were in
accoldance with the supply order. It was, therefure, felt that
the Divisional Engineer, Teiecommunication, failed to clercrse
proper supervision over the work of his subordinate officers.
tl c.irrsideraticn was sought by the department primaril'y on the
gfound that there was only ldck of supervision on the part of
Divjsional Engineer uthioh did not justify initiation of major
pcnaltv proceedings against him. The Commissiori felt that
irr view of the fuct that four o{licers were involvecl in 1lre case.
the matter should be thoroughly subjected to scrutiny in an
oral inquiry 'fhe Comrnission, accordingly, reiterated . the
advice tcndered earlier by it in July, 1982.
Commission
November. 1984. the Ciommission wls jntormed that iidisagreonent with its advice the department had decided to
drop the proceedings against ths Divisional Engineer, Telccom-
In
53;
munication. The proceedings against the other officers are yct
10 commence,
(xxx) Posls & Telegraphs.-Invesligations- condu:tcd by the
CBI in 1977 rcvealed certain irreg'ularities allegedly committed
jn the constructi':n of P&T stafl quarters at Chandigarh by thc
Executive Ekgineer, the Supperintending Engineer and the
'Chief Engineer coocerned with the execution of the works' They
rvere allcged to have caused healy undue pccuniary advantage
to the contractorhira to obtain at 'sponsoieC rate' and
tramport
on priority ' basi.s, an excessivc
by rail
slack
coal (for manulacturlng bricks)
quantity of
a part of which was allegedly misappropriated by
the contractor and sold in the maJket a! high
pfice; and
(i) by helping
(ii)
by allowing tho contractor to consume steel in
€xcess of the quantity provided in the original
estimate without taking prior approval of the
competent authority and without redu -'ing tlrc
rate of steel.
The Commjssion advised major prenalty proceedingq against
all the three engineers. The Ministry of works & Htru5ing
(the disciplinary authority of the Chief Engineer and the
rsuperintending ingineer) and the Department of Posts & Telcgraphs (the disciplinary authority of the Executive Engineer),
however, took a view that thers was nothing wrong in the
engineering offirers he\>ing the contractor in getting the coal,
that the quantity recommended for the contractor, was not
excesil'e, that for the alleged misappropriation. and sale of the
coal the contractor alone was responsiblo, that tho increase
in the quantity of the steel was necessary and duly approved by
54
compctetrt authoritics and that the alleged possibility of reduction in tho cost of steel was only a hypothetical proposition
not of much practical signiflcance. On this basis the Comrnission's advice has not been accepted by the disciplinary authoritreJ.
Thc non-accepta[cs of the C,ommission.s advice in the case
Engineer has alreaidy beeu .reportcd by the
Commission in its Annual Report, lggl [para 5.1 (xvi)
]. In
regard to the Superintending Eagineer, rhe Ministry of Works
and HousinB initially acted, on thc comrnission,s advice ancl
issued a charge-sheet but, on receipt of a written repty to the
charge-sheet, decided to drop the case withorit consulting
the
CBI and the CVC (as required by the prescribed procedure in
such e situation), pointing out, inter_alia, that it would
be
tncongruous to pfoceed against rhe Superintending Engineer
whel it has already been decided by Government no*t to ploceed
against the Executive Engiasgl (whc was basically responsible
for the execution of the project) lnd the Chief -Engineer.
of the Executive
(xxxi) Posts
ard
Telegraphs._Disciplinary prcceed ings
were initiated against a Supdt. of post Ofhces rnd a packer
on
the allegation tbat in the Eatter of reduitment of clerks,
the
{9rmer dernanded illegal gratification from two carrdidateg
through the latter. In the oral inquiry carried cut
by the CDI,
thc charges were established. Keeping in view the gr.avity
of
the charges, the Commission xdvised termination irom
servrce
o_t bollr the charged ofrceff. The Deparrrnent
agieed with the
Conmission's advice only in respeci of ,he iupdt.
oi Fosr
Gfiices but sought reconsideration in respect oi^tlre
pe r,ahy
p"oposgl!- against the .packer on rl.re grouirC
tl,at he t elng a
group 'D' official was merely respotsible for carrying
out the
.directions of his supaior officer.
This was a speci-ous argumerll
because lhe involvement of the prcker in the demand
of ill:gal
gratification was clearly establisireC. .l.he Cornrirrion,
rt.r"_
fore, reiterated its advice. The Departmenl in disiegarcl
of the
Conrmjssion's advice have reduced the packdr,s pay
to the
miliinum of the scale for a period of 3 veais.
'
(xrxii) Rolpays
:-In
October, lg71,
the
Commissio;r
three
uao;r.J, inter-alia,' major penalty proceerlings against
found
were
who
i-f"t il-g"*rs of the Soutt' Bmt"tn Railway
to him at
paymelt
rnaking
by
contractor
to have favoured a
item of work
exorbitant rates for tbe Bxecution of a particular
l"O+."ting/dewatering of some old wells in connection
investigated
Iu;ri, ft. reconJiuction ot a bridge. This was a case
report
their
in
indicatiols
strong
by the CBI and there were
bona-fide'
from
far
was
ofrcials
ihat ttre conduct of the suspect
il;;rrch the officials had been iharge-sheeted pursuant to the
io*iir.ioo't advice' the Railways suggested ' to the ConrmissicninDecember,Lg8l'onthebasisofthcrepliesofthecharged
dropped'
;il;;; that tire pioceeiJii.igs against them --.1y bu was
that
The officers' argumsnt, endorsed by the Railways'
time
given
the
uoJ.t tft. circuirstances/situation obtaining at
pay
al the site.in question, they had simply no choice but to
ba
n'ot
the contractor ihe price he dictated' Hence, they could
pa]'ments'
accused of <leliberately favouring him by making over
The Commission, thereafter, re-examinetl rhe whole case and '
was
ciulis to the concluslon that the officers' plea of innccence
the facts on record Besides' as mentioned
,*, ouppoa"l
^ih.r" by strong possibility that the oficers resorted
was a
ubon.,
to manipulation of records also to cover up their misplaced
the
generositi. For one thing, the original records reJating to
a
was
available
was
that
all
iisputed work were missing-atrd
was
which
of
the
authenticity,/genuineness
duplicate register,
open to aoult. Ttt" relevant letters of the contractor, available
in thc register, gave the impression that these were pcssibly
the
fabricateJ subs.quently. Even the measurements recorded in
payruent
the
eas
Whe:
inflated.
log books were,, it appeated,
plr4ps
fra*a Uecn made to the contractor as per records, in lieu o{
ildications
strong
$'ere
lhDre
parties,
etc., he hired from other
ihat the punrps were very much his own and w'ere available at
site. Abcve all, the particular piece of work in question was a
non-scheduled item (i.e. not an ingredient of the original contract) anal hence one would believe that it rvas very well
possible for the officers to negotiate the rate v"ith the contrac-
i.;-
56
tor a nd to work out a qlantum_merit payment
and that, there,o.":,rh:1: *ur oo qo.rtion
,f,. n"if,".'"y.-Ueiig rrappea into
"t ralediicrat; ;; ;;_
meeLly/blindty pavins at rhe
#;;.*.
In short, the plea Lf ioo*"np" lght to be put
lbrward by the
'T:rt yas_unacepra!19. and.,Hilb c;;;.;r;", rhererore,
s'o.
advised the Raitways in'
Mareh
J982, ;;;;;;d
the
that the.veracjty or. otherJi.. ot ,fr"rvfth
defence
"
;-be tesred t_1,.u:: ,6 inquiO-
case further so
pleas could
Disregarding the .Ccinndssion,.s
adviie, the Raihvays, howthe proeeedings againstr uff ifr"- om""r,
1vcr,. ^d^ropped
*in February f 983 and exonerated ttrem otlhe
qharg.;.
. (xxxiii) Railways :-Agreeing with ttre Central Bureau of
Investigation, rhe Commisisi"
uai,",ai,'ii", ir.l] ma;or penalty
proceedings against n railway
'
663ia1
*rlo rrlJl'u.* found
to
lrc
.!*ti"r.j]"piwooa,
tiquor,
ptroio_eraphic fitms
etc. bur faired ;;;;;'"#i"
account for
the ccnsumption
have purchased. yalious jrems
rfr";" r.Jr'uf.T iiroog inoi"urioo"
th4t,he: hpd prepared bogus bills
regrrangr"rfrr* .rticles. Sub
sequenlly, an oral inquiry. was_
o.f the.same.
-
heJrl igui*i-*. official by
onc
ot rhc CDIs artached ro thl, C.m.tfin;;
;,
the charges
as p'ou:l^bl trr" rnquir;
G;;.; the cqnmis_
li:",ry.".-hetd_
sron advised in Januarv
"impositi#
oi
u--_u;o..; pernlry
.1994,
on,the offisial. This ajvice
*"1 c"-UJ"i rvas arted uporr
by the Rairways in May -of
reg4:
ofticia.l by one srage for a period f,;.d;*" # pay or- the
ot O rronttsl,
,*Endo.sing the, recotumendation
., lxyfvl
larl-or,
the
Rcinvay Board. the comrnirJon,
in
inter alia,.maloc.penalty,.;;;;;;d-il]
j;;';;;;"
U,H,
si3 cvc/84-5.
.cf
lffi :j#.t
tt
who were found., prima facie, to have indulge4 in malpractices
in the selection, appointment and regularisations of casual
Iabcl:lers, etc, This advice was reiterated by ihe Commission
in April 1981, August 1981 and again in September 1981'
on tl-e basis of requests received frcm lhe P-arlway Board for'
reccnsideration. In the dqrartmental inqurry that followed,
the charges against all the three officials were held as proved.'
Based on these inquiry reports, the C-ommission in June i 983,
advised imposition of the oajor penalty of dismissal from
service on all the three officials. 'Ihis advice rv4s also reiterated
by the Commission partly (i.e. in respect of one of thc officials)
in March 1984. In May 1984, a reference was received from
the Railways to th€ effect that the then Minister of Railways
has also accepted the Commission's advice and that further
action is accordingly being taken in the matter. Horvcver, in
Deconrber !984, yet anotber reference was receivcd from the
Railways stating that they have, in the meantime, scught the
advice of the Ministry of Law and they want tlds Commission's "further advice" on the basis af the Law Ministry's
opinion. Surprising$, however, the Commission found lbat there
was nothing even in the Law Ministry's co$ments varranting
any 'further advice' by the Commission as the Law Ministry did
noi find any' fault either with the I.O.'s rePort or with the advice
of the Commission. The Commission, accordingly, clarified this
pobition to the Railways. Nonetheless, under the circumstance
and as the chronology of events as recounted rbove would show,
an inference wa5 irresistible that the Railways were act')ally
looking for some loopholes with a view to dropping the case at
least against the senior most of the three ofrcers. i
(xrixv) Depdrtnlent oJ Rehabilitation.-ln a deparfmental
inquiry, the charges established against a veterinary officer were
that he failed to cotrtrol heavy mortality of livesfock resulting in
a loss.to the department, that he accepted illegal grati{icafion for
cxchange of bullocks in the Cattle Transit Centre and thaf he
to cheat the Government in purchase of padcly straw
",,r-pi"O
by inflating the figures in the rnouchers.
tG
settlers/sellers
for
58
.
In view of .the gravity of the charges established against the
offficer, the Commission advised imposition of the penalty of
dismissal from service on him. The Authority, however, took the
view that thc Commission had exceeded ils jurisdictiorr in advising
the specific penalty of dismissal. A dekiled reply was sent to the
Authority explaining the trrowers of the Central Vigilance Commission as stated in the Resolution No. Z4/7/64-AVD dared
llth February, 1964 of Govrnment. Nevertheless the disciplinary
authority imposed only a penalty of compulsory retire_
ment upon the offi.cer.
(xxxvi)
Eate.d, 'n
Mlnrsl ry ol Shipping & Transport.-Thc CBI invesLicase of collusion in temporarily misappropriating public
funds during 1977-78, against a Superintending Engineer (now
Chairmatr of a port trust) and a cashier of the orgauisation. The
investigation, prima facie, establishcd lha: sums amounting to
Rs. 47,000 had becn temporarily misappropriated for periods
ranging between one month to more than a year. The Superintending Engineer was the Head of the ofice 3nd as such the
drawing and disbursing officer. The cashier was staying in fie
house of this Superintending Engineer as a personal friend and
had been appointed by fhe Superintending Engineer..Ihe rtodtrs
operandi. was to encash demand drafts as soor as these wcre
received from the headquarters but to make payments affer
considerable delay. The funds so misapproprriated were utilised
by the cashier on meeting the howehold expenses of the Superintending Engineer. Alongwith other documentary and oral
evidence collected by the CBI were diaries maintained by fhe
cashier, which, according to the investigation, also contained
corrections in the hand-writing of the Superintending Engineer.
.Agreeing with the recomnendations of the CBI, the Commission advised prosecution of loft the Superintending Engineer
and the cashier which was initially sanctioned by the Department
of Personnel and Administrative Reforms but subsequently withdrawn $'ithout reference to the Commission. Only major peoalty
proceevJings were initiated against the two officers. Wlri]e advisins
59
prce€ution, the Comrnission had also advised that the Superintending Engineer should be removed from the posf of Chairman of the port trust while he was facing prosecution. This
advice was also not accepted by Government. The entire matter
was reported by the Commission in its Annual Report for tbe
year 1982 (para-xxxvi Chapter 5).
Ministry of Shipping and Transport initiated common major
were la&r
splig into sepatate proceedings wi{hout further reterence to the
Commission. When this came to the notice of the Commissiory
the Ministry of Shipping and Transport were spe.cifically requested to seek the advice ol the Commission on the enquity report
before concluding the case against the then Superintending
Engineer. This was not done by the Ministty of Shipping and
Transport who exonerated the officer .on the basis of the enquiry
report wiihout once agaln consulting the Com'mission'
ptenalty proceedings againsl both the officers which
This fact was made known to the Commission alter pcreistent reminders. The Commission then asked for the enquiry
rE)ort relating to the charges against the Superinterxling Engineer
so a. to see whether the matter has been properly exarnined and
considered. The Commission had to issue endless reminclers
'before it was finally ablb to obtain these pape'rs. On perusal of
tbese papers the Commission is of the view that this is not a
clear iaie where the officer should have been exonetated
becausc all the necessary evidEnce has not come on record'
is to be kept in mind that th€ investigation conducted by
the CBI, prima facie, made out a case of coilusion between the
cashier, *L" *u, handling the cash and the drawing and disb'r$ing officer who was in-charge of the officq both of whom were
friinds and who were sfaying in the same house' Being a case
of conspiracy, it should not have been split up into separate
have
enquiries. It wa5 necessary that the two co-accused slrould
that
the
so
ttem
against
togethet faced the evidence presented
was'
case
the
why
known
is
not
arl fu"tt could have emerged. It
once the
split up inio two separate enquiries. Be that as if may'
It
60
eaqgiries were separated, the Superintending llngineer and ths
cashier were no longer co-accused in the sarne enquiry. The
prcsecution, therefore, had the right to preseni the caslier and
the diaries recorded by him, in evidence against the Superintending Engineer and to have the same tested in crocs-examination.
It is seen, however, that initially the pashier was not prodirced
as a witness on the plea thal he was a 'co-accused' and subsequently when the Presenting Officer requested that the cashier
be examined, the plea was furned down by quoting the note
bslow rule 14(15) of the CCA Rules, 1965, vrz. :
'New evidence shall not be permitted or called for to
,fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence noay
be called for only when there is any inherent lacuna
or defect in evidence which has been produced
originally.
"
The Commission feels thaf this very rule should have
the Inquiry Oficer to, in fact, ca]l for the evidence,
enabled
of
the
cashier which was essential against the Superintending Fingiriter.
Sub-rule (15) of Rule 14 read5 as beJow :-
"I* it
shall appear necessary before the close of the case
on behalf of lhe disciplinary authority thc inquiring
authority mtry, in its discretion,
'tllow tht Prcsenting
Officer to prod.uce evidenie not inclualed in the list
given to the Governm.ent servant or mav itsell call
for new eviilence or recall 6nC re-exatnine anJ
wilrwss."
By thus keeping the cashier out of the inquiry against the Superintendnig Engineer, a further ham was done to the inquiry
because the diaries of the pashier were also held to be inadmissible in the inquiry since they could not be proved through the
cashier's evidence. By one stroke, therefore, all the direct
evidence against the Superintending Engineer was excluded from
the inquiry.
6l
For some rcason tho Investigation Offcer also was tror
or the day fixed for his evidence 4nd the Inquiry Offioer
did not gve a furthep adjourrrment and tlus the -resul& of the
presctrt
investigation were also excluded from the inquiry.
Ttre Commission also noticed that where prosecution wit:
nesses proved hostile, fhey rvere not allowed to be cross-examined
by the Presenting Of[cer.
It
was suffciently established that the demand drafts werc
encashed and that payments were not released (o the concerncd
parties in time. It was also on record that no cash.book was
maintai ed in the proper form for about a year and that cash
book enfries had been recsrded on loose sheets. What needed
to be determined was the responsibility o{ the Superintending
Engineer, whose plea as drawing and disbursing officer, that he
was ignorant about the maintenance of cash in his office, cculd
not be found acceptable since he was required fo daily autheniicate the cash-book. Furthermore, the private diary being mhin-_
tained by tbe cashier, clearly showing that the money vas being
utilised to meet the household expenses of the Superintending
Engineer needed to be tested in the inquiry.
*
The Commission is constraincd to observe that a departmental inquiry-is held is order to ascertain fhe correct facts and
the Inqr.riry Officer functions as a representalive of the disciplinary authority to find out the truth of allegations made. To
that extent, his role is difierent from that of a magistrate itr a
criminal case. In fte ftrese,nt inquiry, too legalistic an attitude
has pevailed with the result that material evidence has l,een kept
out of the enquiry and the Commission is left with the feeling
as stafed earlier that ttus is not a case of exoneration. If all the
evidcnce had come be ore the Inquiry Officer, a different tesult
was possible. Had this inquiry report been shown to the Coanmissicn before further action, the Commission would have'
suggested tbat the inquiry be remitted so that all the evidencs
crxld have codte on record and considered, especially since the
62
bharged offrcer was now functioning as Chairnan of a port trust
and it was recessary to establiish his guilt or innocence beyond
all doubt. This, therefore, is being reporfed, as a case o_[ noninrplementation ol the advice of lhe Commission and non-consultatjon at different stages.
Separately the Commission has had occasion to obser-ve
fhat the said officer, now Chairman of a port trust summarily
removed the CVO of the trust, approved by the Commission,
from that position and appointed himsef to the same without
referring to the Commission or obtaining its concurrence. Not
only this, even copies of the relevant orders were not ntarked to
the Comniission. However, when this question was taken up
with the Ministry of Shipping & Transport, (hey got the orders
reversed. r ,-.--._.-
..r.1$
(xxxvii) Steel Authority ol India Ltd.-Thc Commission
advised major penalty proceedings against a Zonal Engincer on
the charge of having demanded and accepted a bribe trom a
private contracfor for passing his bills. In the departmental
inquiry, the charge was held as not established.
In view of the overwhelming
evidence
in
support of
the
chnrge, the Commissio,n did not give credcnce to the defencc
ptlea that {he moncy had been {orcib.ly thrust ir:to the fro. nt
pocket ol the charged officer. The Commission was of the view
that the evidence sugg€sted that the money had been accepled
by the charged omcer voluntatily and, therefore, advised diswith the report of the Inquiry Oflicer and impxrsition
agreement
.
of a penalty of dismissal. Steel Authority of India, howevcr,
dropped the proceedings against the officer.
.
(xxxviii) Steel Aurhority oJ Ind.ia Ltd.-'the Commission
advised irrifiation of major penalty proceedings against a Dy.
Chief I\{aterial Manager and three other omcers. The chargq
prima facie, estab,lished against them was that these olficers had
awarded a contract for the purchase of ammunition boots cosf-ing Rs. 2.75 lakhs, to a privale party at higher rates. While thc
63
requested the Commission fo reconsider its advice.
Since no new facts were brought to the notice o,f the Commission
wananting reconsideration, the advice was reiterated. SAIL,
howeger, dropped the proceedings against the oficers.
SAIL
:'!.
5.4 IVON.CONS
U LTAT I O N
Sdme of the cases in which the departments did not consult
the Commission are mentioned below :-
(i)
Atklubad Bank.-ln a fraud case,
fle
Bank, prina
facie, found an officer guilty of violating ttre established uorms,/
banking principles in allowing advances. Without consulting
the Commission, a charge-shee1 was served upon the concerned
ofr.cer in 1978. The proceedings, however, could nof be contiiried as, in ifie meantime, the police auihorities filed a suii in the
court ugainst the private party as well as the bank officials. As
fre matter in the cou,rt was being delayed, the Bank sought the
Commission's advice fortaking simultaneous departmental
action. The Commission advised the Bank to get the inquiry
conrpleted at their end and thereafter to rseek its second stage
advice. In December 1984, the Bank reported that fhe departmental inquiry could not be held as the documents relating to
the charges we.re flled with the court by the police authorities
antl that the disciplinary authority has, after revie$'ing the matt€r,
decided to lreat the charge-sheef as disposed of' The Bank'
thercafter, dropped the case against the concerned ofrcer wiihout
evin consultirrg the Commission
Central Inland Water Traasport Cotpotation Ltd.In August 1982, the Commission had advised major penalty
prcceedings against th:ree ofrcsr$ on charges of having caused
(ii)
64
undue benefit to a privat€ parly by acceptance of sub-standard
material and release of payments wifhout full receipt of the
same, CllV IC issued charge-sheets to the officers in Febri:ary'
1983, buf did not proceed further to appoint the Inquiry Officer
nonrinated by the Commission'
Sre inordinate delay in issuing the appointment
for Departmental lnquiries, his
the
Commissioner
order
It
was only then the Commission
s'ithdrawo.
was
nomination
of two ofrcers were terminated
services
that
the
was infornred
performance in fireir respective
poor
of
in March, 1983, because
The
Co.mm'rssion was neither consulted
areas of responsibility.
before termination of the services of the officers ns1 '#3s this
fact brcrught to its notice afterwards'
In liew sf
of
{iii)
& Central Ercrlra.--{oncurring with the reof the CBI, the Colnmission, in June, 1983'
Cu.stoms
commendation
advised, inter alia, initation of major penalty proceedings against
three successive Drawing & Dishrrsing Oflicers (DDOs) who
were found to have exhibited grave negligence/gross derelictiotl
of duty in the discharge of thet functions with the rcsult that
tbe cashier concerned went o{l misapprropriating Government
money undetected over a period of time. ln t}e proceedings that
followed, one of the offlcers pleaded guihy to the charg'e' The
authority, however, on its own finalised the proceeddisciplinary
-against
him by awarding him the mildest minor penalty of
ings
,censuie'. As a matter of policy, belore passing final orders, the
Department concerned werc required to consult fhe Commission
ani obtain its advice (at the second stage) more so because lhs
dccision was to award a minor penalty to the officer which was
substantially difierent 116p the Commission's initial advice for
maior penaity prcceedings. The Department, however, failed to
.Jo so.
(h) Damodtr
V alley
Corynration'--:fi8 Commission hrd
(DVC)
called for a report from the Damodar Valley Corporation
in September, 1978, on a complaint coofaining . allegations
aeainst
a lr{edical Ofrcer tbat he had bcen prescribing
costly
65
medicines to a few employers who, prima
lacie, were not si'rfter_
ing from the diseases menrioned.
ml, ,Urgrri"r, i"i",' prt^o pri",
"r;fu ,f*p-"1";;:li1i:;Lili*;
Iti::i"i:';:,ff
jn
CBI
February, 16lg. it cBI srated ,1" rt,
.ii.*rion;
could
"
not tre substantiared. Meanwhile,
audit had also f,ilf,fighlO ;"
thp part of the lrdedical On p, ir-ttr" prescrip_
9n
:lO!:til,..i
tron of medicines.
_ After taking into account. all the relevant aspects of the case,
lhe Corporadon decided to initiate malor p6natty'
proceedings..
against the officer. In the departmenrri lnq-uiry,
ifr. .f,*g* *'",
found to have been established. A major, penaiiv
oi r"orr.tioo ot
pay was, accordingly. imposed on tbe offcer.
As per rhe prescribed procedure the Commissiou was
,
required tc_be consuifed before initiation of proceedings
at the 1irst
stagi and again before impoeition of the penalty o"n the orfi.",
concerned at ths sssm6 stage. This prrocedure was
not followed
{lb.gugh a report was called by thi Commission. The C,h.ief
Vigilance Officer of the Corporatlon also diil not call on
rire
Commission as requested so that procedures prescribed
by the
Commission could.be clarified to him.
(v) Delhi Administration
Administration had con_
-Delhi
ducted a preliminary investigation
into an allegation of leakage
of official information 'to the press with regard to financial iri+
gularities purporfed to have been commitedt by the physi:al
E<lucation Wing. It was observed .that rhe article had extensively quoted from the notinlgs of the ofrcial file. On ttrc basis
of the preliminqry investigation, the Delhi
,Administration
issued a charge-sheet for minor penalty only to
tbe Directorate sf Education.
a Supervisor in
Oo examination of the defencc atatement of the chatged
ofrcer, the Delhi Administration felt that an oral cnquiry.in
respect of minor penalty proceedings was warranted.. Only at
this stage, a reference was made to the Commission for sekilg
advicc in this conoection.
66
.
.
.
.
issuo
Since the Cornmission was not consulted before the
charge-sheet to the offlcer,
any advice in the case.
of the
it
refrained frcm tendering
Dethi Administration-The Commission liad called
a report in November, 1979, in regard to unaccounted for
(v)
for
of
the Flood Contlol
Department-which was alleged to have been damaged due to
floods in 1978. After persistent reminders, an investigation
iepo* was received ln March, 1984 i'e. after a lapse ol 4*
was
years. tt revealed that following the inquiry, a charge-sheet
'serloed
concerned
upon the Executive Engineer in charge oi the
Division. Later when the officer repatriated to his parent
d.parr-"o! viz., Ce\tral Water lommission, the disciplinary
*itro.ity closed the case against the officer' It is., thereforc'
oppur"ni that the Commission was not consultcd either be'rore
thJ issrrance of the charge-sheet or even at the stage o{ the
procedurc'
closure of the case ar required under the prescribed
cement iying
in rhe Timarpur Store
The ftll facts of the case are not known due lo the nonavailability of the invesfigation report. However, it rvas clearly
for
establishcd that 133 bags of cement ha6 been unaccounted
retthe
r?cords
of
relevant
want
in the Timalpur Stores' For
ponsibility foi this excess quarltity co-u1d not'be determi:red'.
ihe Cornmission was. therefore, constrained to tieat the mett€r'
as closed.
carryin$
The Commission also deprecates the undue del:ry in
out departmental investigations.
(vii) Minittry oJ Home Afairs'-The Commission
had
w'rrking in
received information that a Superintendent of Police
lacked
Cornmission
Tribes
the Scheduled Castes & Scheaiuled
to his'
attending
was
not
i*otion to duty inasmuch as he
to thc
attached
when
that
offi.i"l duti". fuily. It was also alleged
and
smupgling
in
PJam eilport in the past, he had indulged
amassed
had
he
that
other malpractices. It was further alleged
income' Tlfs
assets disproPortionate to his known sources of
67
information was forwarded
vestigation and report.
to the SC&ST Comnission for
in_
The SC&ST Commission, on the basis oI
the denial o[ the
allegations by the concemed ofiicer ,""o__-.n0..,
closure of
$9 case against him. This CommissiOn, trowever, advised the
T&ST Commission to rnake independent ;*.rt;i*i* into the
allegation. It also advised thaf the services
it-;;;;;
S. P. should not be regularised or made "f
pcrmanent in his
present post until investigati,ons in his .ase *"i"
conpleted and.
D€ was cleared of thb allegations, by this
Commission. The
matter was also reported to the Ministry of llome Affairs
for
nocessary action. However, neither the SC&ST Commission
nor.
the }lirristry of ltrome Affairs got any independent
investigation
but the SC&ST -ommission chose to
entrust the investigation to an officer in that Comnission
who
was of the same rank and status as the S.p. concerned, even
though a senior officer of the rank of DIG police was available
for investigation. Further contrary to the advicc of this Com_
aission and without any further consultation with this Cmrnrission, they obtained tJpSCs clearance for the oficer,s ffans_
fer on deputation to the SC&ST Commission on a p€rmanent
made into the allegations
basis.
(viii) Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.--fite CBI invesrigated a case against an officer of the Hindustan paper C-orpora-
tior Ltd., on the charge that he had availsd of Traviiling
Allolance twice-fust from the said Company anrl then from
the lndian Farmers & Fertilizers Cooperative in connection
with a journey he undertook in August, 1976, ostensibly for
official work but actually, as it transpired later, for attending an
inten{ew for another job. The CBI held the charge as suF
stantiated and disciplinary action was recommende<l against the
o{Iicer. However, before formal proceedings coutd be initiated,l
finalised, the officer resigned from the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. In September, 1982, the Commission came to know
6E
that the officer had, in the neantime, joined tl:e Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (ITD. The ITI were accordingly asked
by the Commission in November, 1982, to initiate minor penalty
proceedings against the oflficer for his past misconduct.
Though action was initiated accordingly, the case was finally
closed by the ITI on their own without awarding any punishment to the officer and wilhout consulting the Cnmmission.
(k)
India Tourisrn Development Corporaiian (ITDC).*
A complaint against an Executive Manager of a hotel was referred to the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation in 1980.
From a report received n 1982, without any explanation of the
delay oI two y€ars, the Commission leamt that the Erecutive
Manager was charge-sheeted in May, 1977 but, after considering his explanation, the charges were dropped as no primt
lacie case was established against him. The Comrnission was
furthcr informed that no reference was made to ttie CVC because thc allegations wete of an administrative nature. As no
detaili about the charges were furnished, the C'emmission callcd
for these and also the relevant ftle in which this case was examined. After two years, on repeated remintlers from the Cornmission, it was stated that the relevant file had been L:st whilc
in transit between the ITDC and the Deparrment of Tourism
and that it was not possible to reconstruct thl same. From the
orisinal cornplaint received in the Commission. it appears that
the allegations against the Executive Manager were of miscondrict of criminal nature, involving moral turpitude and that they
could not be treated as mere administrative hpses. There is,
therefore, strong suspicion that a deliberate atternpt has been
made to misplace the relevant file and to withhcld the contents
thereof frorn the Commissior on the pretext that the charges
against the said officer were of administrativc nature, not itrvolving any viglance
angJe.
(x) Municipal Corporation ol Delhi.-In 1979, the Commission called for a report regarding a news-item caried by a
local daily about the loss of certain important flles pertaining
69
l
to
uuauthorised construction on MCD lauds. An incomplete
repod nas received in April l9B2 and the final report in
September, 1984.
The report revealed that the Zonal Assistant C-ommissioner,
Shahdara Zone in the course of surprise inspection of the
Building Departnent in 1968 had come across a large number
of casss of onauthorised occrpation of MCD lands lying ruldisposed of, for years together. The prima, Jacre responsibility of the
Building Inspector and the Zonal Engineer'was fixed and they
were proceeded against for major penalties. No headway could
be made in the departmental inquiry as the relevant files forming the basis of the charges could not bc iocated. The case
was, therefore, held as not Foved primarily on the ground of
non-avail:ability of relevant papten. Further action in tbis matter
was not apparently possible since the particulais of tte lands
unauthorisedly occupied had not been mentioned in the inspection report of the i!,onal Asstt. Commissioner. Although the
decision to close the case against the concerned ollicers on the
basis of the inquiry proceedings was taten by the MCD much
'after the date on which the reporf was sougitt by the Commission, the Cornmission was not consulted.
The Commission is of the view that, had a little more care
been taken to collect information about the cascs which were
taken note of by the . Zo4al Assistant Commissioner on the
basis of the particulars of the Zone to which ihese cases pertained and also the names of {fte unauthorised occupants, the
guilty persons who sat over the files for a very long time could
not have got arvay spot free. By virtue of the 'ime faCor, any
fruther action on fhe proposed course has been rendered infnrctuous because, meanwftile, the Corporaticn had taken a
policy decision not to proceed against such of the ceses where
the unruthorised occupation pertained to the period prior to
t971. Tlte Commission did not terrler any advice as i1 was pres€nted with a tait accompli.
10
(xi) Municipal Corporation of Delhi.-ln August, 197g,
rthe Comrnission calle4 for a repotrt from MCD in respect of a
specific and verifiable allegation against a hcadmaster to the
effect that he had acqurred/disposed of various properties without the prior approval/knowledge of the competent authority
.and thereby violated the various provisions of lhe Concluct
Rules.
The Commission in response to its repe ated rerninders was
all along informed by the MCD that the matter was being
looked inlo. However, in Muy 1984, the Commissicn was
apprised thet. rn invesiigation the headmaster ilad been found
guilty of the violation otl the various provisions of the Conduct
Rules governing the sale/purchase of properties etc. and a recordable rvarning was issued to him wlhout lurnishing any
repolt and without consulting the Commission as required.
(xi) State Bank oJ India,--T\e Commissioa, agreeing with
the Bank, advised initiation of minor penalty proceeclings against
two olHcers on tle charge of lack of proper superv.ision over the
conduct of an advance to a private party. Accordingly, the
Bank charge-sheeted them but after examining their explanations only an administrative warning not amourting to a nrinor
penalty rvas issued to each oi them without consulting the
Commission.
5.5 Delay in Processing of
V igilance Cases
The following.arc some illustrative cases of delay on the part
of authorities concerned in processing vigildnce matters.
'
(i) Air India.-On
the basis of a CDI report pointing out
that three officials on the Tender Committee of Air lndia had
comnritted gmve irregularities by allowing a privat: part.v iwhc
were awarded a contract for supply of vegetables to Air Inciia)
to increase the prices for their supplies retrospectively without
justification for such incrcasq the Commission advised
proper
,
7L
regular departmental action as for major penalty against three
n:.embers of the Tender Committee and suitable action against
{wo other officers. Even though this adviqe was given in January, 1984 and despite the known fact that one of. the three officers'
against whom proceedings were to be iritiated was due to retire
from Air India on 31-8-1984, issue of charge-sheet was delayetl
titl May, 1984 and the Inquiry Report prepared by Air India's
own Inquiring Committeei was sent to th.: Commission for iis
sccond-stage advice on 29-8-1984 i.e. jrl,st two days pr:or to
of the officer's retirement when any efiective penal action
against the charged. officer had become impossible. It was ftrtlcr noticed that before finalising its report, the Inquiry Com.mittee had not recorded any evideoc€ on behalf of the diicipiinxry authority, that the defence as presented on behalf of the
charged officer had only been recorded and that important questiols whether increase in vegetable rates was justified and whether there was loss to Air India were alscr left unexamined. In
these circumstances, the Comprission had no choice, but to
eipress itS lnability to give its second-stage advice on the case
ia so far as the immediately retiring ofrcer was concern€d.
.the datc
(ii) Government of Arunachal Prcdesh.--The Commissron
cslled for a report regarding a compiaint against certain oficers
of Forest Department, in December, I 98O One of the officers
complained against was an Assistant Conservator of Forests,
On the basis of preliminary ilvestigatiun, the charge, prima
lacia, established against the ofrcer was tha! he along with the.
D.F.O. purchased a few bags of cement from l.he Government
Stores without the approval of the competent Drthority and
trarsported the same through a contractor with whom he had
official dealings. Since the fact of retirement of A.C.F. in
Fe ruary, 1982, was not specifically pointed out. the Commission
advised minor penalty proceedings against the afficer in December, 1983. The minor penalty proceedings against the officer
could not be implemented for oirvious reasons. Wtat is disquieting about the case is that althcugh the Commission had
72
called for the report as early as December, 1980, it took exactly
3 years for the Government to furnish the repo{t through the
Ministry of Agriculture wheo the officer had already retired frorn
service. llad the impending retirement of the offcer been kept
in rind, action against the officer could have been conciuded
bc-fore
his
(Iii)
retirement.
Bank ol
Intlia.-A
source information
alleging
gross
irregularities on the pari of certain officers received in the Com-
missiou was sent to the Bank {or investigation. After making
preliminary investigation, the Bank felt in January 198L that the
matter required verification of accounts of some private partles,
and bence it should be looked into bv some outside agency.
Thereafter. the case was referred to CBI in March, 1981' who
furnished their report in March, 1984, recommending majcr
penalty proceedings against one of the officers involvcd in'tbe
case. Since this officer was to retire ir' Augusr, 1984,, the Commission called for the Ba.nk's cominents on CBI's report immediately and reminded the Bank about the matter in June, 1984.
Sinc: the Bank still did nct furnish their comments, the case
was exarnined in the Commission on merits in July, 1984 and
the Bank wcre advised that in view of the officer's impending
retirement, thcy may take whatever action that was feasible
agairsi him. The Bank imposed rninor pen alty of censure on
the official 3 days before his retirement.
I
I
F
There rvas inordinate delay on the part ol the llanh in
furnishing their cornments on the CBI's report, as a result of
which appropriate actiorl ngainst the officer could not be advised
by thc Commission. The Commission was consirained to express
its displeasure over the delay in tiris regard.
(iv)
Central Puhlic Works Departnrcnt.-Agreeing with the
recommendation of the Ministry of Wolks & Housing, the Ccmmission, in July, 1982 advised minor pcnalty proceedings against
an E;ecutive Engineer who was found to have exhibited criminal
I'
i
S/3 C\/C/ 84_6.
I
negUge;ce
in the execution of a particular work, rezulting
of approximately Rr. 1.5 lacs.
in
infruc{ucus expenditure
The officcr was to rethe on 31-lGl98-l but, the Depaitment
madr: the statutory r-eference to UFSC for imposing the penalty
just 10 days before his retirement. It was obviously not p,ssible
for thc UPSC to go through the entire recorCs of thr; casc- ard
to tender the.ir ,advice within a matter of just ten days artd they,
thcrefore, returned the casc to tho Depaitmcnt.
ln I\!ar,
saying that,
1984, the Department approached this Comnrission
in vi:w of the retirement of the cll.cial, there
was
no point in pursuing the minor penaliy prcceedings agai.rst him.
Thc case having thus been rendered infructuous, the Commission
Irad uc r-rtj;er optign but to acqri;s.:: in the proposal to drop
the
proceedings.
thc foregoing, it is seen that atr officer whose grave
in a signiEcant wasteful cxpenditure was
n()t proceeded against, thanks to the lackadaisical manner in
which the Department handled the casc agai$t hirn.
F
r.om
negligence had resulted
(v) Mtnistry ol Comtnerce.-In Fcbruary, 1984, the Commission advised major pcnalty proceedings against an Advisor
(Purchase & Sa{es ) of the Corporation on the allegation, interalia, that he accqted a car radio as illegal gratification as a
quid pro quo lor getting appointment for a person in the Cotton
Corporation of India. A Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries was nominated to conduct the inquiry against the charged
oflicet. The Commission had also advised that expeditious action
should be taken in this case with a view to finalising the proc,eedings before 22-8-1984 when the cortract of employment of the
concsrned ofhcer was to expire, aft:r which no action would
b.rvE becn possible sgainst him. The Ministry of Commerce,
however, dealt with the case in a routine manner and appointed
the CDI as Inquiry Officer only on 8-6-19E4. Obvio'rsly. therefore, the proceedings against the chargcd officer could not be
74
finalised belore 22-8-1984. Tlrus the delay on the part of the
Mnistry lD dea;ing wiih the case has led to an apparently guilty
official going scot lree.
(vi)
Controller Gercrol ol Def ence Accounts__In February,
inter slia, advised major penalty proceed_
ings against a retired Deputy Controller deneial <rf
D;fclce
Acccunts v,,ho was subsequently appointed os F-rnancral
Advirer
in tfue Delhi State Itrdustrial Oevet,opment Corooration (DSIDC).
The charge against him, which was based on a .CBI
ciise, was
that in hjs capacity as F.A., he approved a pri)posar pul up to
him for grant of a loan to a private party, knowing
that the
assediot made in the note thal the p."p"iui was
Irursualr ro
the decisior of the Managing Commitiee (conrpr.is;ing
all Heads
of Departments) was incorrect and, further, that the erttecedents cf the private party (which was a defaulter
in respect of
an earlier lcan) were most unsatisfactory. The oificer was
charge_
sheeted in Septemb€r, l9go. Itr the departn:cr:tal
inquiry the
charge against him was held as pmved ancl, acc3pting
the fin_
the Inquiry Officer, the Commission aJvls"O ln August,
91ry
"J
t981, imposition of a snbstantial cut in his prc.nsion, fne
CCbA,
however, did not implement the advicc of the Commis:ion
and
19'19,, the Commission,
I
,
requested for reconsideration of the advice of the
Commissi.rn
on four occasions whicb, however, was rciteratcd.
The disciplinary authority is ycr tb rake a clecisicn in the car:e.
_
The matter has
been uncluly delayerl.
(*ii) gus1sft,s & Central Excise._In the thirri rvegk of
August, 1984, the Commission rcceived a refcrence from the
Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), Department
of
Revenue, seeking its cotrcurrence lbr closing the case
agarnst a
Dirtrict Opium Officer who was going to retire on 3l_g_19g4.
Perusal ol the case papcrs revealed that the case: as it
is, was
based on a complaint which was received by the
Departmcnt
way back in October, 1977. In other words, ir took tt Dcpart_
,
ment lJmost seven years to I'ook into the allegations and
to
make a reporl to the Commission. It was furtiier noticed
that
75
the Department waited for as many as three years for the suspect officer's explanadons to certain irregularities brought to
his notice. ffiat was equally unfortunate rvas that even tliis
bela-ted report of tlrc Department left much to be desired and
was far from comprehcnsive or satidactory. fhe case, on the
face of it, had all the ingredients of a potentially serious vigilance
case and. as such, the Commission did rot agree lo endorse the
recommendation to close the case. At the same time, thele
could be no point in pursuing the matter further as the impugned
incident was of 19?7, and therc was only less than n fortnight left
for the retirement of the officer concerned, alter which action
against lrim would become time-baned.
is evident how leisurely and inaptly the whole case has
handled
and delayed. by the Departmettt as a result of
been
potentially
serious case was allowed to fizzle o$t and
which a
the otficcr concerned allowed to go scot-free.
It
(',tiii) Customs & Central Ercrsc.-Whiie aCvising major
penalty action agaiost a Superintendent of Centrel Excise, the
Commissicn noticed that the investigation into tire matter was
oompleted <luring 1975-76 and the investigation report holding
tbat the allegation as prima lacie ttte, submitted by the superinfendent of Central Excise in February, 1976. Atthough rhus t}e
allegation was substantiated during investigati'-'n in 19?6, no
aition was taken in the matter for about 7 years. The Commissicn accordingly suggested to the Departnrcnt to fix responsibility for the delay. The Department, however, informed th€
' Commission that the Assistant Collectors who dealt witft the
case at the rele'rant time had al1 retired lrom. service, and that,
therefore, the matter of fixing responsibility for tlelay nny not be
purstred. It is evident that the Department was careless in handling this ca6e, as a result of which the officers involved got
away unpunished.
Excise.-In Jtne, 7977, ttre Commission advised , inter-alia, imposition of a malor penalty on
an fnrpector who was found in' a deparhnental inquiry, to be
(ix)
76
Castoms & Central
guilty of gross derelictiotr of duty which would
have enabled a
private importer to evade gryment of a sub,stantial
amounf of
customs/ c€ntral excise duty. The depa.rtment took no
action on
this advice for seven years, aad in November 1984, proposed
that the officer be exonerated. This was not aqreed to. The
Commission is not aware of fi_nal action, if any, taken
by the
department. This is being reported as a casc of inaction and
delay.
(x)
Customs & Ceniral
Excise._A complaini received in
of illegai gratification by a
senior officer in Central Excise (bllectorate ai Hyderabad was
forwarded by the Commission in August, 197g, to the Central
Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) for invstigafion anrl
report. 'I'hereafter the Commission had been ,rmiodiog th"
the. Commission alleging accepturnce
Department from time to time asking them to expedite action in
matter. There wff, however, no ,esponri whatscr,.er lill
August, 1984, when a repoft of sorts was teceive4 saymg that
thc oflicer concerned had already retired from service in lpril,
1980 and recommending that the matter may be dropped. There
was, of course, no question of pursuing the matter further as
any a.tiLjt aga.inst the officer concemed had already become
time-barred on account of lris retirement.
the.
Tlds case is, therefore, being reponed as one of non-action
for 6 years.
l]xl) Customs & Central Excire.-lnJuly, 197g, the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) referred a case ro
the Commission soliciting itb advice regarding aclion to be
taken against a Superintendent who allegedy caused a lo,ss of
about Rs. 19,0O0 by wrongly ciassifyin! a particular ccnsignment. The officer ccncemed had already retirer! Irom service antl
the impugned lapse/misconduct on his part pertained to the
year 1970. Any disciplindry acticn against him evcn under the
Pensioo Rules had already become time-baned at the tirne tlre
cas€ was referred to the Commission in Julv. 1978. While
pointing out this position to the CBEC rn August, I 928, the
Commission had also asked them to fnd out why and how the
case had been so badly delayed. Despite this inordinate dela-v,
which was specifically pointed out to the CBEC, they took
again another six years to offer their explanation. As per this
bclated explanation, the ca$e w:rs not initially referred kr the
Commission on the presumption that no vigilance angle was
involVed in the dater. The Department also tried to explain
that the Government's interests were not actually jeopardised
and that thers was no miscarriage of justice.
The case is being reported here only to highligfit tbe nunncr
in which the whole case had been handted/processed by the
Delhftmenf. The fact that the Deparhent took six years to
cxplain their failure to take action in the matter for eight years
cpeaks
for itself.
(xij)
Directorate General Supplies & Disposnis.-ln March
1979, tlte Commission advised imposition of substantial cut in
thc pensio. n of the ofiEcer for lapses brought o',rt in four dirciplinary enquiries conducted agahst him. 'fhe charges provcd
againsl the officer pe.rtained to the llss sufered by Govemment
on account of his failure to ensure timely action against rup
pliers failing to make supplies by due d*tes, to consider implications of extensions sf tiae given to suppliers and to negotiaie
with suppliers for reduction in price (in acccrdance udth thc
known decline in price in the market) before g'anting exlensionr.
Though a period of more tharl 5+ years has elapsed, the Comrnission has yet to be informed of the final decision of the drsciplinaty authorilY.
(xiii) Governnent ol Goa, Dwnan & Diu.-Ln July, 1981,
the Commission advised action under Rule 9 of the CCS (Penrion) Ruics against a lVfamlatdar of the Government on thc
charge of having preferred a false LTC clajm- No action has
78
yet been taken either to implement the advice o[ the Commission
or to difler with the rame.
This casc also figured in rhe Annual Report of tbe Comfol the year 1982, as one of inordinate delay which
continues tc date.
(xiv) Ministry ol Home Aflairs.-ln March, 1980, rhe
Commission advised imposition of the majoi pcnalty of dismissal on an IPS Officer after he was held guilty r:f chirges of
frrlsitying evidence and related matters in a case in which an
alleged sm"ggier was appiehended with gold biscuits etc., by a
Board of Inquiry constituted by the Governnlent of Cuja.r.at.
In May, 1982, the Ministry of Home Afta.irs requested tbe
Comrnission to reconsider its advice which thc Commission did
not agree to do. Govemment of India have not so far implementcd the advice of the Commission to dismiss thc ofic:r.
(xv) Ministrl ol Home A {Jairs.--fhe Chairman of SC/ST
Commission had reporte6 to the Ministry of l{one Aflairs cerlain acts cf indiscipline and misconduct on tlle parl of cne of
their senior Deputy Drectors tvho subsequently became a Drector in the months of October/November, 1981, in two D.O.
letters addressed to the then Union Hcme Minister. Apparently
no timely action was taken by the Ministry on the issues reported
to them. Further, this C-ommission had taken up the matter
with the Ministry as eaxly as in October, 1983, when it was
specifically brought to their notice. The Ministry of Home
Affairs werc asked to submit a detailed report indicating action
taken on both these D.O. letters of the then Chairman, SC/ST
C.ommission. The report received from the Ministry in rcgard
to the firsf D.O. Ietter dated 31-1G1981 is found to be sketchy
and incomplete. No report on the other D.O. letter daled
27-ll-1981 has yet been receivcd. Therefole, there was an
unusual delay and callousness on the part of the Ministry in
takilg actiru on serious matters of indisciplire end misccnduct,
even though the matter lvas reported demi-officially to the then
Unirn Home Minister.
mis$ion
(xvi) Income Tax,-A complaint alleging cornrpt pracfrceg
on tle ia+ of an Income Tax Officer, received by the Cortmis'
sion, wis forwarded to the Central Board of Direct Taxes
(CBDT) under the Department of Revenue in June, 1982, asking
ior inquiry and report-. The CBDT, however, has failed to send
trc a"tit"a report to the Commission, despite repeated reminwith
ders. There has been unusual and callous delay in dealing
this case by the CIiDT.
(xvi) Intome Tax :-A sc'';rce information received by the
Commission alleging comrpt practices, -in regard to a speciflc
transaction, by an Assistanl Q6lmissioner of Income Tax
1982'
referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes in December'
a
serd
to
faiied
have
howevet,
The
CBDT,
asking for a repofi'
was
report despite repeat'ed reminders,
.:rtin) Income Tax.-ln October lg79 the Cerrtral Board
of drect Taxes sought the advrce of the Commission in a case'
but the refer-ence being incomplete, it was not possible for the
Commission to advise on the basis of the same' In November'
1979, therefore, a proper report was requested alo:rgwith all
relevant details/materials. Since this was not done, the case was
of the delayed cases in the Commission's
for
1983. Even thereafter, there has been no
Annual Report
higHighted as one
positive r€sponse from the Department.
(xtx) Income Tax.-A complaint
received by the Commission against an Incorre Tax Officer was referred to the Directorate
oI Inspection (Inv) in J:c/ry, 197 6 for investigation and report'
According to the complainant, a complaint made by him to the
Income-tax authorities about huge tax evasicn by a parti,cular
up by thq said fIO who had also communicated the complaint to the party concernedl after accepting illegal
gratification. So, as per the complaint received by the Commission, the .ITO was guilty of (i) acceptance of bribe and (ii)
assessee was hushed
failure to take appiopriate action against the party complained
against. despite specific details of tax evasion furnished by the
EO
'
the mattef was refered
oomDlainant. After several reminders'
in April, 1983,.but withoul
bv the Department to the comJssion
for'{r;' same and
the investigation report' tttJJ"t-it'i"t l*fJune' 19.84' another
uauice' In
details to enable it tcl i"nJu'
other
;"o-t
;;
;:T:l :1l m*n'
*:
acuon
.]ffl#
XT
"';",f"
a laie stase' i! *lt 1 iso difrcult
nJro-i* l*rion ot tu*' At such
tnd not taken
il'il:tfft;h; omciols of itt" otputtttnt whc
seen that tro proper
had' thereforq no
proper action in the matter' The ijommission
closed' Thus' as " tes'9t {
choice but to treat tne matter-a-s
of the Department- in sending a
inordinate delay on the pad
conduct of an II1O and
reoort to the Commission utoot the
pt"p"t r"rr"*-up actior on a. complaint relating
i"ii, t"","rt"t
lcstl of revenue'
to trx evasion, there is appreheniion oi sizeable
(xx) lncome Tax.-Irt
December,
1977
the Ceniral Board
' in a case relating
Taxes sought the Commission's advice
arbitrary
officia15 who had allege<liir macle
.f D:;;;
;; ;;;"-Income-tai
asseisnents
jn certai caseJ. While the Dspartnlsnt proposed
a furLher report
closure of the case, the Commission 5o''rght
retii-c in Ma'v'
Since one of the officiajs involved lvas drie to
remirlderl to send the
I 9 84, the DJpartment weie constaliily
in time. However, the Department - sent- their report
t"p""
refuo", 1984, after the ofticial ccncerned had already
ooiy in""ff
The
was trxrssible'
,i-r"a ?roIn.'.et'ivce. At this stage. no action
closure of
to
advrse
but
no
option
Coor-lsl"o haC' therefore,
the case
(zcri) Income Tax'-Or the basis of a CBI ;epert' the Com'
mirrto io i4arch, i 9?9. adviseC minor penalty prcc"-edings
Income Tax Oflicer' The Departmenl issueci a chargcogoiorr
t7
"n
siect after sirieen rnonths in Jul'r' 1980' After anotlrer
a suPFlemooths. in De*ember, 1981, the Departmenl issued
of rnisitem
there'n
ancther
metrtary charge-sheet incoipotaiing
of the
ambit
thg
v;ithin
th:s
tor
conduci with a view to brlnglng
requested
Department
the
penCing prcceedings' In June, 1984'
tlre Co;uirission to spare the services of one of the Commissioners
8l
for- Departnoental Inquiries. to conduct an oral inquiry
in tbe case_
Ordinarily, minor peaalty proceedings are conclud,edl'withoui
oral
inquiry,.
the Department had given no redons why an
.Siace
oral inqu;ry was necessary in this casg, the Commissioo
left it
fo the Department to aLpoint one of their own officcrs for th€
purp,ose, if they considererl it necessary
to hold an inqurry. Thus
:r case of minor penalty pr,oce€dings has been delayed
by the
l)epartment for over five ycars.
(x,.,ii) .Incoze Tar.-A cannplaint rvas
receiv€d by the Com_
rrrission in 1979 alleging, inter alia, that prosccuiion
undfi the
Tar Act against a private frim was suspende.d under the
i nfluence of a member of the Central
Board o1 Direct .faxes
(CBDT), even though five appiicatiGns of the Fartv for corn_
pounding had emlier been rejected by the concernud aufhoritiol.
T'hc Ccmmission called for a report in this regard from the CBDI
in August 1979.
I
ncome
ln April, 1980, the ftparrment infoi.med the Commission
t:rat a report in the matier had already bern furnished. This
vras, holvever, not factually correct. Accorclirigly, the correct
position was explained to the DepartmeDt in May, l9go. A
number of reminders seat thereafter by the Commission evoked
no further response for nearly four years_ In February, 19B4,
the DErartment wrote back to the Commission asking for a copy
of the Commission's communication of May, 19g0, as it was
"not available" with them. After a copy of this communicatipn
was supplied, they asked for a copy of the Commission's corr
munication of Augus! 1979 by which it bacl initiallv called for a
rr:port in the matter. Eventually in Augu::t, 19g+ j tne Depart_
ment furnished a report proposing that the cds€ 6ny be closed.
Tlrus it took the CBDT five years to furnish a repor! to the
Commrssion in the matter. Meanwhile. thc Member, CBDT.
had retired from service.
xxiii) Income Tax.-..-ln January, lg1.g, the Commission rcnt
a complaint 1o the Cmtral Boqrd of l)irect Taxes asainst a
Conrmissioner of lncome-tax and two Income Tax Officers. Tho
(
E2
no action on tne
conrplaint alle3ed, inler4lio, thal the CIT took
of forged
introduction
ug-ui* ,u" ITos regarding
;ftr;*
records' Sub:equently' in
the same sct
Septembcr, 1981, some more aiiegaticas against
of cfficels were forwarded to the CBDT l'or enquiry and report'
e ,=po.t was received in March, 1982, srating lhat the allega-
dccrinents
in certain
assessment
thc
tions against the ofhcers were not substantlated' However'
1982'
Aprii'
Ccmmission r€turned the file to the CBDT in
had not
otncers
thcagainst
allegations
pointing out that all the
therelore'
shoukl,
case
that
the
and
teen lo'okeO into properly
be refened to fhe bommission urgently alongwith a consolidated
.*port .ou.ring all the allegations. The reason fcr seeking tho
Departmeni's report urgenily was that the CIT. concerned had
alriady retired in luty, 1979 and initiation of action agailst him'
if rvarianted, would be barred by the lrmitrticn ot 4 years under
thc ltr:nsion Rules. Since, however' there rvas nc rcsponse frcm
the Oepartment, the case was higbligbfed in th'c Comrnission's
Annual. Report for 1983. The Department have still not furnisbed a report in the matter. The Comrnission has, therefore'
been lefi with no alternative but to treat the case as closed'
Indian Airlines.-In March, 1980, the Indian Airlines
io
the notice of the Commission a case of 1974 against
brought
a Trafiic Officer who was involved in handling a suitcase (containing rvrist-watches of foreigri otigin) which rlas transpcried
in an irregular manoer from Bombay to l\{adras where it was
seized by the customs authoriiies. Initially the officer was fined
by ttrc customs but later, on appeal, was given benefit of doubl
nnO th" penalty imposed on him remitted' The Indian Airlinel
wanted to drop the case against the ofiicer on this basis but'
accorcling to the Commission, the facts anC circumstances of the
case clearly indicated a primn lacie case for departmental action'
even thouih the ofrcer was given benefit of doulrt in criminal
procecrlings. The Commission, accordinglv' advised major
pcnalty pioceedings apinst the officer' The Inquiry Officer
\xtiv)
nppoint.a by the Indian Airlines found the charges as not proved'
Tlre Commissiott, however, disagreed with the IO and foond
t3
f19T lh evidence produced during the Inquiry that the Traffic
Oillccr could not be completely absolvecl of -responsibility in
aliowing haadling of the suitcase at Bombay. tt, therefore, advised in Aprrl, 1,982, imposition on the officer a penalty as coR_
ridered appropriate by the Indian Airlines in consonanoe with
the magnitude of his misconducl
Despite the fact that the Conmission in its advice gave full
freedom to the Indian Airlines to choose a suitable penalty com_
mensurate with the Traffic Officer's ilvoivement in handling
contraband goods, the Indian Airlines did not take prompt acfon
on the edvice anci referred the case back to the Conomission for
reccr:sideration thrice. Evgn though the Commission reiterated
its ailvice in 1982, 1983 and 1984, the casc still continues to
be under the consideration of the Indiaq Airlines and no final
dction has been taken thereon. It is, therefore, being reporte
as enl of excessive delay.
(xzv) No.tlonal lnsurance Co.-Ia. 19g1, on the basis of a
CDI's inquiry report, n Divisional Marrager was absolved by the
Compaqy, of the charge that he had bcen carrying on a benanri
insuil..nce agency. The Commission, however, oted that even
though there was no evidence to prove that the Divisional
Maurger was instrumeatal in i4troducing the name of the ficti_
ticrus insurance agent in any of the poli'cy documents or that hc
was operating the bank account of the agent or that he was
the b,:neficiary of the commission collected. in the name of the
agent. it was established that the frctiticus agent's balk account
wa* operated by an accountant and a peo of the fasurance
Comluly. The Q6rnrnlssl6n, accordingly, advisecl the Companv
to take discipiinary action against the acccuntant and the pgon.
Despil e repeated reminders, the Company did not tal<e action
to procbcC against the two officials till April, 19g4 when it
requ:rled reconsideration of the Commissibn's advice on the
grornd that according to the legal opinirn obtained by the Conr_
panl'. the charge of running a benami jnsuance agenry against
tbe Divisional Manager having failed, no useful p'u.po* was
84
hkcly 1o bc served by proceediog against his trvo subordiqates'
The Commission, howevgt, reiterated its advice pointing out
tbat despite the Divisional Manager's exoneration, the accountant
and lhe peon coqld still be linked with the benami agency otr'
the basis of documentary evidence and that, thereiore, the Commissi<.rrr was not satisfied that the two juntcr oflhcials could automutically stand absolved following the Divisional M-anager's
cxoneration. While the clase stilt continues to be underSe Company's consideration, the Commission has expressed its unhappir^5c over the undue delay on the part of thc Company in acting
on its
advice.
(.\xvi) NAtioml I nsurance (ompany.-ln the Commission's
Annual Rcptrt for 1983, a case was repcrted vide para 5.3
(xvii) where because of delay in processing vigilance matters by
the National Insurance Company, the sxspect officer escaped
regtrlar <lisciplinary proceedings for serious allegations of malpractices committed, as the officer was due to retire by the tiine
thc case was referred to the Commission for its advice' The
Coinmissic,n, therefore, advised fixation of responsibility fcr the
jnordinatc delay. No positive progress could be rcportcd by the
National Jnsutance Co. even after a lapse of abcut 1+ years.
(xxvii) Ojl &
N atural
Gas Cotnmissiorl.-In
Juiy,
1983,
the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted a report regarding
iregulariries committed by certain officials in the award of a
conuact for lranspottation by road, of gotrds liom Calcutta to
various project sites.
Whcn the ONGC's comments on the CBI's report dirl not
bect;me available despite reminders, the CVC had to finalise its'
advicc on the basis of the material mad+ availablc by the CBI,
cnd. jrr December, 1983, advised initiation of tnajor penalty
proceetlings against four of the officers of ONGC. A Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries was ncminated for holding the
oral inquiry. It was also pointed out to the ONGC that as one
85
of the four suspected ofr@rs was due to retire soon, chargcrli;,:a ihould'rie issuid and inquiry proceedings finalised on an
urqent basis. Even though the Commissiou pursued the matter
regularly with the ONGC by reminders, the ONGC failed even
to issue charge-sheets till November, 1984 when the Commission
docided to cadcel the nomination of tl-re Commissioner for De-
partmental Inquiries.
(rxviii) PosLr & Telzgraphs.-In respect of oral inquiry
colducted by a CDI against a Divisional lngineer, the Comnrission observed that out of various listed 6$cuments as exhibits,
thice impcrtatt and, relevant documents wele not produced by
the prosecution befoie the Inquiry Oftcer, and in 1..ugust, l9?g,
asked the Department to explain the reasons for rron-procluction
of { hese documents. The Department after a lapsi of about
5 years replied that no inquiry was possrblc ih" Vigil.n..
",
Officer and the Divisional Engineer (T) coqc€rno
with this
case had since retired.
Tlrere is no apparent reason why iniluiry from ccncerned
c,fficials could not have been made particillarly when the matler
had been referred to the Department immcdiately.
(rxix) Railways.-In August, t 981, ftre Comm;ssion advised
min,.:r penalty proceedlngs against a Railway Medical Ofliccr
who bad been found. to have misused an ambulance under his
control for private purposes on atleast three occasions, ultjcr
the guise of taking patients from one hosp.ital to the other, thus
causing inconvenience and harassment to thc needy palients who
harl been deprived of the ambulance van facility.- H" hoC
been found to have resortF-il to manipulaiion of records "Lo
0og
books etc.) in order to cover up the misuse of rhe vehicle.
The Railways, however, tock as many as 17 months to serve
charge-sheet on the officgr concerned. Otr the basis
the
replS' filed by the offlcer to the charge-sheet, the Railways
sug_
a
of
g:sie.i closure of the case. The Commission could not
er:dorse
85
this recommendation and advised them ,n Deccnrirer, 19E3, to
crdet a departmental iuquiry in the case so as ro estahl sh the
truth or otherwise of the charge against ttrc omcer. Hr wever,
it was only in the third week of Febtuary, 1984 that ihc Railwrys issued the necessa4r orders. The ,,fticer was Cue tc rrtire
on 29-2-1984 and, thus, it was impossibir to finalise the iiiquiry
befcre th'at date. Ultimately, therefore, lhe dase was simply
closerl as no further action was possible, uncer thc reieviint rul;s,
agairrst the )fficer at this belate.d stagc.
I
lr
It lras aiso been noticej by the Com-rnission tl.rat the o'fficer
\vas piomoted to a higher grade, irregularl.r :rnd rgeinst the
rules, during the currency of the disciplinary proceedings against
lrim.
(xxx) ^State Trading Corporation (SIC).-I* September,
19Si, on receipt of a complaint alleging sub-standaid construction of the Conmunity Centre Building ia the S"iC Housing
Colony at Mehrauli, the Chief Technical Erarniner artache.{l t )
thc Commission, requested the Chief Vigilancc Olicer of thc
Corporation to arrange inspection of the ouilding by the forncr,
but tirere was no responsc inspite of sevcral reminder;. Two
officiai: from the STC met the CTE on l3-l 1-1981, tirc day
on wliich the concerned Chief Engineer, rvho had iakcn urusual
interest in the construction of the building right from designing
tc rnaking entries in measurement books, rerired on cqmpletion
of his contract service. It transpired duriirg investigaticn that
I\'Irs. Kothari & Associates, who were asked by the STC to certifv
tle completion and structural safety of the buildinq had not,ced
certain cracks in the building and had.dcsired that the ca.:e
shculcl be referred to Roorkee University for examination. In
a ptelminary report submitted in August. 1981, lloorkee University stated that the building had reacherl a stage of almost
total structural failure due to serious cracks in bcams and columns. As such thc Commission advised the STC in December,
I 981 , to lodge a formal complaint with the CBI and also to
8'l
withhold STC's coniribution
;;F,t; *
;t"
;:":*.t
to
Provident FuntJ.- and glaluity
:H
ilf '" E:#
J"*rTi1x'J',;*
did not take any actron o
to tbe ' Ministry ol
than a year. They reported lhe matter
suggesting a^referencb to the
Commerce only in March, 1983'
of Commerce to the
&;.- Th. refJreoce mua" uy the Ministry
not contain the necessary
ini ** also incomplet" ut it did
to look into the matter
Jrruif, *fri.tt would have enabled them
for
the CBI declined to take up the matter
furti;t A, srrch,
purpos'r could be
il""G"t""". Hauiog observed that ro uselul m rhe officer
pursuing
served at that late stage r
-fu-Ilj"t:
and his PF"Gratuity had been
retired
concerned had already
decided not to pursue the
released by the STC, the Commission
that having come to
matter. It ls, however, worth mentioning in 198O' the STC
knorv abcut the sub-standard construction
approach ar111-.did not tespond
seem tc }ave adopted a diiatory
il;.'Lfi;t ,.i1o.'t t"' inspeciion of th" b"iltling till 13-11-81
they- also dicl not
*r,* ,i" "ooc"rined official itired' Furthe'r
advice to refer the
ffi"';;;*tr-;ction on the Commission's
a it" CBI' As a result' a possibly guilty official went
-"*r"i
qrct
{ree.
for
Sitvel-or General o! lnttia'-.Sttwey -work
tank-cum-restaurant
over-head
of
ing oi"o.ttl.rtlty of the shaft
the'
i."l,.i* Gamei vi[age Complex wa: s9l c.onductec bv
check*
(xxxl)
C,,r',rrnit,
i,-n !'rom Lhc Surveyor General
ol
lnd13'
in
March
'
work is reportect to have been complete{
the Surveyor General
lgs;.'-Th; t"port is said to be ready with
to the loamilsion' Some
i.ai"i*"ni*.tfit same is not being tosentthem
by the Delhi Develop'
made
"t
,"qt ittA to be
;ffi;
Though a period
rendered.
so
ir?.-"i"a",i.r,r, for the services
has been
actior'
nc
elapsed'
i+ yau" has since
;il;,h*
the
collect
to
either
lndia
,
,"*tt Ot ;" SJ"y- -General ofdespite
reminders'
several
Jl" t.r""* the report
fiie
;:G;i
88
T
t
t
5.6 LACK OF RESPONSE
I
'
I
I
t
The following are some illustrative cases ol lack of response
cn the part of authorities concerned :
(1) Mittiury of Comnterce.---'fhe Commissior call'j' 1 for the
co;ilmsnts of the Ministry of Commerce on a report received
from the CBI irr a case regarding a Director of '\pparels in
March 1982. However, since no comments were received' lhe
exacase was exan ned on merits in JulylAugUst 1982' After
comments
nrination. the Commission called for the \{iniltrv'i
on a specific issue discussed in the CBI's report' Despite reminclers, however, no response was received from the Ministry'
(ii)
complaint received by the Commission
levelling serious allegations against certain officers of the Incometax Def artment was forwarded to the Central Board of Direct
Taxes in May 7979 for invstigation and report' Even allet
over 5i years and despite several rcminders' ihe Department
have not sent the desired report' ln view of this lack of rcsponse
{ronr the Department, the Cornmission has been ieft with no
alternative biit io treat th: matter as closed.
t
I
Incanrc
Tax.-A
(.iii) Itttottrc Tax,-A complaint received by the Coinmission
levelling serious allegations of corrupt practioes against a few
trliicer-s o[ thc Income Tax Department was forwarded to tlte
Central Board of Direct Taxes in Seprember 1978 for investigation and report. Even after more than six ycars and despite
ieveral reminders, the Department have not sent tlre dcsired
report to tbe Commission. In vie',v of this lack of respcrnse from
the Department, the Commission has been left with na alternative
but to treat the matter as
s/3 c\f ci 84-7.
closed'
CHAPTER 6
EXAMINATION OF CIVIL & OTHT'R WORKS BY THE
CHIEF TECH|IICAI, EXA}III{ERS ORGANISATION
() r ga ni sat io
n
atLC I unc t io,ting
6.1 The Chlef Technlcal Examiners' Organisation was cr:eated
rvithin the then M'nistry 6f Works, Housing & Su2nly in i 957 to
conduct 3n inJepsndent, effective nn6 continuous technical audit
of the works urldertaken by the Central Public Works Depariment.
The administrative control of the Organisation was tra s:erred
tc the Gntral Vigilance Commission rvith effect fronr
lst ovember, 1964 although the Organisation continud to discharge the same functions as before. ln 1979, however, it was
dscided that tjre functions of technical aulit of the CpWD rvorks
shcu:d bi taken over by CFWD itseif and tire Chief T4chnical
Exarniners' Organisation would thereafier confine itself to the
examination of works from a vigilance angle only.
6.2 The Chief Techn:cal Examiner
is
available
ro
offer
technical opinlcn on vigilance cases under investigation by other
agerrcies such as C.I]-I., CVOs of the Depaitments etc. 'Ihe
Ol'ganisation also conducis vigilance-orienteC inspection of wo rics
uujertaken by departments and public sector ;ndertakings.
6.3 All organisations within the jurisdiction of the CVC are
required to furnish quarterly returns of the works undertaken by
them. Govemment departrnents furnish these
returns
under two sub-headings-works cosfing Rs. 15 lakhs and
more and those Costing less than Rs. 15 lakhs. Frorn
putlic sector undertakings, returns are received in respect
of all works costing Rs. 15 lakhs and more-ard electrical
and hortio:rltural works costing Rs. one lakh and Rs. 25,O00 and
90
of these returns random lnsg:callegail il con,Jl.'.crj. CTE organisation also look5 into
q'1 Q5 antl cthcr sourccs'
tions rcceivcrl iionl ClJl.
wclc c:trticd out
Dur ing 198'1, ralclom rtlr'r rzolo inspec"ions
by the Organis:rtlon as below :
.moiE respe{tively. On the bas's
-----;t'
i'
l\, LrJiji.
(i)
Government dcp..rtmenlE :
Works costixg Rs l5 lakhs and tnorc
Works costinl: hss than I{s' l5 lakhs
.(it) Pubiic
soEtor Lrndortaking!, [)ar'ks'
'
etc'
w.,.t-'
e\ll lllrt-d
l0:0
_18
4197
62
:
Civil works cJsting more th:rn Rs l5 lakhs
Electricr,l ',Yorks costing nlorc lhtn Rs l Llkh
4it71
30
Stctl t ot tit ra rt s
is
6.4 I. will t': secn fronr this tlblc ih'rt thb Orctlnisaiion
wirrks
thc
out inspections to thc extent ol 2i2lc of
ubi. to
"o.,,yby gtlvcrnment departments and- public sector underunderlaken
tl"
perceptible
t, aer that these inspections have a
tJ"t-lr" in
silruld
that
these
view
the
is
of
i-p".i, tnu Conrmission
achie'e this
iiJ'"iifJ,v ol ',oo/o of the rvorks in progress' To 30
teams ot
oblective, ih" Ct"ti.' Grganisation requires about
tealrl's' The case
tecinicat staff v"hilc a1 p.1'"'"n, it has only 8 such
\{as
organisiition
the
with
staft
regarding augmentation of the
rattve
Adrninist'
and
P;rsonnel
rui.n op ',ri1; the Depiirti-nont of
ilrkl rci(eiori;rs as far back as 1981' but lespite discussions
results
have
positive
no
period.
minJ,els during thc intervening
so far been acltieved.
Need lor irt. rc,tte itt rire nunrber ol i specrions
C-l'Es'
6.5 Even the 2.'12Vo inspections caried out by the
.Organisatio have unearthe{il serious lacunae' loopholes and irreimplications' I I lhe lesults
err;;it;...; lruuing substantial financial
€xi{apolated rc ihc total
aie
."of inspections i1g1ually carricd out
9l
number of works in progress in the government and public sector
undertakings, fis fotal figures sf financial ieakage5 would b€
sraggering. Meaningfui vigilance-oriente4 inspectionl rvould:
result in large-scale sav.ings. The Government are once again requesied to consider the requirements of additional staff for the
CTEs' Organisatiol in the larger interest of economy in governrncnt expenriit ure,
Superti,sion
ol mitnr
workg
6.6 Although there is no bar to inspection of minor works by
the CTEs' Organisation, yet due to stalling constraints, by and
large, inspections are limited to the major works l'.e., those costing lls. I 5 lakhs and mcre. However, on thc, b.:rsis of inspection
of a small sample of minor works. it is seen that the departments
tend to neglect proper supervision and control of suck urorks. Since
the total numb€r of minor works undertaken is substantial, the
cumulative eltect of losses on account of improper supervision andr
control rvith regard to their execution would be staggering.
6.7 Quality of minor works, which arc often in the nature,
of small jobs pertaining to maintenance and rcpairs of the existing
struclures, allects th€ life of such building. Proper supervision
thereof can lcad to substanttal saving in money provided fbr such
works. Organisations such as Posts & Telegraphs. Port TruEts
and organisations dealing with steel, coal, fertilizers etc. have
large-scale industrial structures and housing colonies to maintain.
l,hfbrtunately, most of the organisations do not have sufficient
e'tgineering stafi 16 u6*uatel_v sup€rvise the mainierance and
rrpuir iobs t herein.
Appoiniment of supervisory stafi
6.8 The Commission had written to all organisations pointing
out the need for appo.intment of proper, permanent supervisory
stafT at all levels in those departments where large-scale civil.
works are either undertaken or maintained. This point has beer
raise<l in the Commission's reports for 19g2 and 19g3
as well92
However, there has been not much
of an
improvemen
t in the
fact, whenever any irregularity in executing/
,supervising a work, involving a vigilance angle, is observed' the
first line ulf drf"rr." taken by thelofficials concernd and accepted
,by the managem.eut is that the staff was heavily sverburdened
,nd tir.r. was not enough manpower available for supervision of
the works in question.
situation.
In
I ns;tecting Staff
6.9 At present the CTEs' Organisar'ion is perhaps the only
organisation available to look into vigilance cases' involving works'
becauso the CVos cf varicus organisations do not have a technrcal
to
backgound and have not been provided with technical s[4ff
nentioned
assisi'them in their investigation. However, as already
above, the capacity of the CTEs' Orgnisation to carry out inspections is severely limited due to lack cf adequate stall at its
Flence, serious irregularities involving a vigilance angie'
vrith kirge financial implications, possibly go uudetected and
rnset the
book.
comrpt;ffrciats canno{ be brought
aitp"A.
to
To
situation, suggestions have been made to certain selected orga'
nisations like DDA' NTPC, ITDC, SAIL and various port trusts'
that the vigiiuce deparlftents of these organisations should
incluCe some technical siaff at appropriate levels' The Commlssion's suggestion has not met with significant response so far'
l'lanuals & Procedures
6.
l0
Althcugh tfte importanee of manuais and procedures has
sircsse/i ti:ne al'.ri agaln, and the maiter has been
highlighted in the annual reports of the Commission for the years
aay
f -uSt.-lSgZ an<t 1983: not much hearlway has been rnade by
manuals
public sector underiaking in the Dreparation of such
& Housing
.governing executic"n of works. The Ministrv of Works
aiso conlinued to be tardy in the updating of the CPWD l\{anual
Vol. II (Cotiracts) which lias becn in need of revision since
t*gn
|
970.
93
Con.nrltunis
position regarding laptes in the appointment and
working of cohsultants ernployed by public sector underbakings as'
stated iy the Commission in its reportb for 1982 and 1983
6.tl lhe
remains unchangpd.
C
omrnrt
n
slt'ortco mi ngs
6.12 ln th€ Annual Report for 1983. common shortcomings
such as (I) uniustified flmting of limited tenders, (II) rtcmpreparation of estimates and plans, (IfI) improper drafting of
tender documents, (fV) incorrect administration of confiacts'
(V) poor quality and quantity control and (Vl) absencc of
agroe,l formulae in contracts for derivation of rates of extra items'
wire discussed. However. not much imptovement in the situation
has been noticed.
Discussed below are some of the cases seen by the
Chief Technical ExamiaeCs Organisation during this year wherein
common andl serious lapses anel irrcgularities were notioed :
6;13
Bomhay Port Trust
Lightins at Ba.Ilad Pier container yard by install.ing flaodlight
IoA'ers
(i)
For illurnination of ttre cointainer handling area of thg
containe,r terminal being set-up at Ballard Pier Bombay, it was
rlecided to use high pressu€ sodium vapour lamps installed on
high mast flodlight towers. As the work wal stat€d to be
u rg3nt, !o publicity was given in the press blt limited tendcr
uquiries were addressed.onlv to thres fuins. Only one offer was
received. The work was awarded to this firm. The rates adopted in the estimate for tho maior item of cabling was 5O% to
l)OVo higher than the prevailing market rates. The estimatcd
cost of each tower of 3O mtrs heigftt was ody Rs, 1.25 lacs
rvhereas the accepted cost of each towcr of 26 meterc height was
94
considerl{s. 2.30 lacs each. The provision of lighting was also
on
awarded
was
work
The
ably belcrv the stan<lard prescribed'
was
work
the
of
completion
'l-Z'-1g83 ani the stipulated date of
' 6-5- l9rj3. Iirrw€Ver, the work was finally completed on
9'2-198.1. The ground of urgg'ncy advancedl for inviting limited
tendcrs, therefore, did not appear to be sound'
(
twru llank
Construction ol residential Jlats at Southetd' Road, Bangalore
The approved architects of the Bank made an ofier to
the Brink or behalf of a fum of builders to ccnstruct flats for the
Ijank at Bangaloie. Accordingly, an agr€ement was entered into'
uniler which tite rvork of construction for an amouni of about
Rs. 40 lacs was awarded to the fum' In awarding the work" there
justiflcation of
was no cJmpetitive c.all of tenders nor was detailed
cosi rvoiked out.
(ii)
Another irregularity noticecl lvz"s that although there was no
provision for issue c,f cement to the contractor, 1900 bags of
the
cement wcie issueC bv the tsank at Rs' 34 per bag, as against
nr:lrket rate oi Rs- 59 per bag. Thus an unintendad benefit of
Rs. 65,&]0 v;as conlerred on the contracior' Yet another irregu'
larity.was that an inter3st-free advance cf Rs' 5 lacs was granted
to the contractor, althoueb there was no provision for grant ot
any advance to the contractor.
Ct'ntral Public Works De\artment
Slrengthenirtg of runwat- in the Civit Aerotlrome' Trit'ondrtnn
instead of in drums,
to strengthenthe
work
relating
in
the
agreement,
in
as stipulate.d
leading
Trivandrum'
Aerodrome,
the
Civil
in1;.of the runway in
exira
item'
an
as
approximately
to payment cf Rs. l.?9 lakhs
conregarding
assumptions
ce-rtain
This payment was 1r.1s€d on
justified
the
standard
view
in
of
sumption of fuels which was not
data. This l*d to an exces5 payaent between Rs' 1'2 and 1'5
(ni) C.P.W.D. issued b'tumen in bulk
lakhs.
95
The matter was brought to the notice of CPWD in March,
1981, but no furtLer action has beelr taken by the depaf,tmedt
despite reminders.
Delhi Administration
Corctruction o! cross drainage works (Syphons) for main channel
at Cornation treatment pl.qnt to supplementarv d.rains
(iv) In
connection with this work, an
extra paym€ot
ol
P.s. 2,30,965 for the item "extra for laying stone work il or
around water or liquid mud etc." was made. There was, however,
no ifem of stone work measured and pai4 for in the bill to
warrant this extra item. Therefore, in the absence of the main
item of stone work measured and paid foi, it is not clear how an
extra item of laying stone work in or under water etc. cr@ped
up. Even the rate worked out for this item was not as per the
provision5 of the agreement. Though the matter was brought
to the notice of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Cmtrol,
Delhi Administration, durirg May 1984,
been laken in the matter.
Delhi Administration-
ro
action has so far
Construction of a school buiWing at Mehram Nago, Delhi
(v) Delhi Administration are constructing a school building
ai Mehram Nagar. Delhi. During inspection by the CTEs' Orga_
ni3ation, th: design of the portal frames in the multi-purpose hall
*'.rs found to be defectivg particularly at the column and beam
junction. No details of column and beam junction have been
indicaied in the drawing. The field staff hed confumed that no
sirifrups which ar.e essential from the point of view of structural
safety, had been provide{ at this junction. The lap and aachorage
lengths provided between the beam and the column bars were also
rnadequate fo1 bearing tull strength.
These deficiencies. $'s1s brought to the notice 6f ths Chief
Engineer, PWD, Zone-I, Delhi Administration as far back as
Jrnuary, 1983, but nothing has been done by tho Administration
in the matter.
96
Delhi Devebpment AutlwritY
at Indrapra:tht Esnte, New
Delhi--t.H. .Providing nnd instatktrion ol sound resisting
f oldahlz Wtition waII
Constnrction ol Indoor Stadium
(vi) Global tenders for this work rvere called and opened on
15-4-198.1. The contract wqs awarded to a private party at a cost
of Rs. 1.54 ctores on a turnkey basis and, therefore, ii included
all elements of the work unless specifically stated otherwise. The
price offered by the contractor vide their letter daled 25-8-1981
included the cost of scaffolding, erection of pariition and supporting srructures for motors etc.
During execution, however, an extra item amounting to
Rs. 3.71 lakhs was sanctioned and paid to the cofltracicr for fhe
erection of a temporary platform. In the D.D.A., rhg Chiet
Proiect Engineer was comptetent to sancflon such a,r extra itern.
Yet the Project Board of the D.D.A. sanctiored the;xtra item
in spiie cf the advice of the Planning Department of the Chief
Projecl Engkreer about its inadmissibility. Even though ttris
irrcgularity along with several others was referred frrr vigilance
investigation to fte D.D.A., no fruittul action has been taken in
spite of repeated reminders.
Delhi Deielopment Authority
ol Indoor Stctdium 41 Ix!rtprtistha E3tdle, Nek'
Delhi-Constrrctian ol rcad along tlrc railway line
(vii) This work was awarded by the D.D.A. at 28Vo abovo
the esfimated.ccef. During the execution of the rvr,i'k, il ttas
found that out of 17.2 MT of bitumen issued to tire contraclor,
veiy little quantity lvas utillsed fo;: the lvork leal'lng rbout 14.663
M'f of bilumen costirry Rs. 42,522 unaccoutted Jor. Apart irom
the resultant work being substandard, this led to loss to the
D.D.A. and unjustifred bcnefit to the contractor, tn thaf the work
wae paid for at full c.ontractual rates as though th: full quantify
Contti'ucttof,
of biturnen had been used therein.
97
Iirurgh the matt3r was referre4 to the D.D.A, in July, i 9g2
repJrt has been received lrom them in spite
1'or investigation, no
o[ repcated reminders.
D
e
lhi
D
eve
lo pment
Authority
Provision ol a new culvert..under an existing brittge
(viii) Ihe work of covering of Nalah with l80t) nirn diame:er
RCC pipes under the Geneial Raj School at Hauz Iihas was
awarded in August, 1983. During inspection cf the rvork by
the
CTE's Organisation it was noticed that though a properly cons_
trucied bridge existed at the road joining Green pa r.k with the
Asian Carrres Village Complcx, RCC pipes w;re laiJ uncler the
samq though not required and not provide.d for uldcr the tech_
nically sanclioned estimate. These pipes were furlher encgsed
in rejnf<trced cement concrete. Tlri.rs an ' infructucus expendi_
ture of alrout Rs. 1.6 lacs was incurred in a contract of Rs. 22.54
{t
e I
h! De
v
l'rov'ision
elo p me nt A
o.t
uthority
Arena [knd liglfling at lndaar Stcdutqt. New Delhi
(ix) An item rate-cum-lumpsum
was awarded to M,/s. Genelect,
contract for Rs. 57.35 lacs
for providing flr)od lighting at the
Indoor Stadium, New Delhi. Certain stipulated illumination
levcl was to be provided over the playing err:n:t specified as
78x60 rneters. However, the actual illumjnation was concenrrarerl over the actual playing area and certail other areas irrcluded
wi:hin the defined area of 78x60 meters were excluded. Thus
the sfipulated level of illumination was provided for only about
74% of the specified area and in the rest of the specifiecl areas
the level of iilumination was far below the specification. Even in
respect of 74% ol the specified area, it was noticcd thaf the illurnination provided was 1349 lux as againsl the stipulated level
of 1500 lux. After the CTE s Organisation had pointed out these
deficiencies, an amount of Rs. f.60 lacs was reccverecl from the
corltractor.
9E
.
D
elhi
D)
v a !o p
rtte
nt A utlior ity
Construction of Indooi Stadiunt at I.P. Estale, New Delh!, S. H..
I illing ol earth lor bufier zone between Rativscv Ltne und
DI|SU Jencing
(x) This work costing Rs. 6.19 lakhs rvas awarcled by re'
DDA on 10-4-1981, to a contractor who was not eligile lo tender
in view of (he conditions. prescribed i thc tender enquir.r''' Tbe
tencier enquiry contained a stiinge rrt and unwoikable condition
that tinre given for completion of worli was onlY 15 days. The
srrcccssfui ct>ntractor, however, greatly de12t.6 lhe work as the
plcgress of work was only 75Va even:ix months lalt:r when jnspection rvas ccnducted- This unworkabie conr"i'.ion, therefore,
w}ich the DDA were no1 prcposing io take serilusl-y, prevenled
manv eligible contractors from tendering. 'fhe wolk was ar<'ardeC to tlrc con+'ractor at a much higher rafe of 31 'Alqh above
estimalcd ccst when similar works had been awardcd 1.o the same
conlractor al *te sarne place by fhe DDA at rates ralging between
22.10% to 24.'74Vo above estimated cost.
The DDA issued ealth to the contractor free of cost and
royaliv and maintained no record to elsure that this carth was
rctuall5, ,:lse{l by thg contractor on the work in question'
Thus iL is eeen that right from the stage <-rf acceptance of
ten.Jcr uncalled for benefitb were conferred ot rhe contractor'
Delhi Deveiipment AuthoritY
ll
orks pcrlcintng to Asian Gamcs hzld
in 1982
inspected some of the
Authotity in conDevelopment
Delhi
executed
by
works being
The irregularities
in
1982.
held
Games
Asian
the
nection wilh
prima lacie noticed in connection with the execution of t}te works
rvere brought to the DDA's notice for further detailed investiga-
(xi) The CIE's Organisation had
tion for pirr-pointing misconduct on the part of the concerned
99
omcials. dthough abouf two years have since passed, no investihave been contlucted by the
DDA. It is apprehended that later on DDA might argue thar
.
no fruitful investigations can be carried out as the cases have
become old or that concerned staft has becn shifted. The ins_
tances of the works in connection vritl *t i"t investigations are
gations from a vigilame angle
required are metrtioned below
(i)
Consfruption
:-
of Indoor Stadium at
Indraorastha
Estate.
(a)
Appoitrtment of architects-consultants.
(b) Filling of earth in Eastern
plaza.
(c)
Construction of lake in the Coruplex.
(d)
Steet work Second plrase-1r\gency- -Trivuni
Sftuctuals Ltd.).
(e)
(f
r00
)
Plumbing work.
.Construction
of
two rnain roads.
(ii)
ConstrUcrion of 169 Dwelling Units, phase I, Asian
Games Village Complex, Siri Fort--lnternal elecrrification.
(iii)
Consfruction of 169 Dwelling Units, phase III, Asjarr
Games Village Complex, Siri Fcrt--infernal ekctrificalion.
(iv)
Provision and installation of diesel ger*-rxting set far
Administrative Block Centre, mini hospital elc. at
the Asian Games Village Complex, Siri Fort.
Housing und Ilrban Developnent Corporation Ltd.
of 875 General pool eaarters at Llehrauti_Badcr_
pur Road (Sector-VII) New Dethi (SH : Groups
S, 6 & 7
ol sirc ll)
Construcliott
(xii)
g6a1lu"1
for this work was awaxded fo1 an amount of
Its. 23.43 lacs. The rate for providing and lixing cub_boards.
was Rs. 1000 each. During a site examjnation ii was
noticed
that part payment had been made for 300 Nos. cup_boards
at
Rs. 960 each. lfowever, acJually at site only lg0 Nos.
cup_
boards lrad been fixed,
in an incomplete nrannei, aml the remain120 Nos. had neither been fixed nor vrere. {hc malerials
bro:rght at site. Over-pa1,,ment for the items not lixe(l
and nol
even brought to site was to the tune of Rs. 1,15,200.
iog
/
The colstruction of the complete projecl was also not
of
an
standard. Test resulfs of cement concrete and cement
mortar.shclved that these were far below spe."-ifications.
The
cemcnt coris umption statement showed thaf the
actual consump_
tion was 1, 1 84 MTs whereas theoretical, justiied consjrmlrtion
was onlr, | . I 1 8 MTs. Since cemelt was issuecl free
of charge
bv HIJDCO, the excess consumption shown by fi.lJ contractor
i ncli catc cl possible rnisappropriation
of cement.
acceptable
I
nrlit;n Oi! ('orporation Ltd.
Grant oJ tnobilisation arlvance to the contrurtor irt
ctntnectnn
witii conslruclion ol quartet"s at Hafulia porr Township
(xiii) A contract for construction of 36 Nos. tyneJV quarters,
Group 'B' at Haldia Port Township, costing F<s.''32.Z2lacs
wae
awarded to M/s. Eastern Builders in laiuaiy, tlS:.
The work
was to be complcted by Jaauary, 19g4. The qonhacl
did no1
ptrovide for grant of mobilisation advance
to t}e conrractor.
. Holever, ir: February 19g3, the confractor aslieJ fo. a nobili_
sation advancc equal to lOTo of the contract
co_st in respect of
lwo. rvorks. including the work under reference.
Subsequently
during discussions with the Refinery Authorities, the
conuacbr
101
asked for an advance of Rs. 5 lacs for the work, u'hich was granted. One of fhe conditions Laid down for grant of ihis advance
rvas that the work should now be completed within a period of
I C montbs as against fhe period of 12 months spcr:ified earlier.
Flowever, even when the work was inspected by the CTEs' Organisation in February, i 984, the approximate sotstruclion work
tlone was only 90 Per cent.
srnce tire grant of advance'was not covered Lv ilre original
oI agreem€nt and further since the cottli'.iol-t under w}ich
was granted was also not fulfillcd lry the contta€tor'
aclvarrce
th:
.graniing the advance amounted to giving an ulllntsllded financial
terms
hcnefit to the contractor.
I;t liLrn Teitphone Industries
Providirrg primary power disttibulion s1'slen in conttc.clian witlt
conitiuction ol cross bar unit Jor ITI at !?'ae Eareli
(-<ir) For the manufacture of cross bar lelepbcne exchange
.equipmen$; a factory was set up at Rae Bareli' The National
frrautttitt Deveiopmlnt Corporation were appointed as consul-
primary
tarlis for the Projeit. As a part of the electrical services'
transgear'
oi
switch.
provision
including
power distribufion work
a
contract
up,tlrrough
taken
etc.
was
iorrn".., hightension cablcs
Rs. 27.38 lacs.
c'
'sting
involved supply and laying of a latge quantiiy
The contract
and
o{ cables. During the period between tte call 'of tenders part
a
that
ttr" aue date for the receip of tenders, it was tound
tft" ,tipfut"d quantity of cables was actually not requiled'
"itH, quuniity was accordingll reduced by issuing an amendme nt
was not propolHowerrer, the item of cost of laying the cables
of tenders'
of
evaluation
tionately reduced. Even at the time
was not
rhe
cables
of
laying
ifr.. quunaitl, reduction rclating to the
rvork
that
the
was
;o|j;;.- ihe result of this irregularityand ITI hacl to incur got
an
urrntd"a to the second lowest tenderer
extra expenditure of about Rs' 45'000'
102
cost of equipments required fo bs
F1sgu1s4, 5ush as
switch gears, cabrei etc. *-t.a'oui
ro .about 90vo
of thc conb.act value and in absolute t".oo-,t
was about
Rs. 25 lacs. The cost of cables pr*r."c
"'.o"rt u.c.pt.a
lfrr,r"gt"itre
fenderer M/s. Best & Crompton, worked
out to Rs 3.39 lacs.
Howe\,er, ]rad the cables been procured
tfrouglr .uJI" ,rru"ufu.tulers, the cost would have been considerab\;
lowcr. A cable
Th.
-transformers,
_
uranufacfurer whose tende
*hil'ffi.".r#l,:
r.::i:,..
of R s. 2. 7 7 r";;- r;; ffi ;:.
i.l
xiili
y1: lfgrr 22Vo higher rhan rhe cosr quoted [:y rhc cable marru_
raclurer.
There. is no singl: industry/firm
which niarlljlactures
,, me heavy
a:t
electrical equipments required lor industrial
power distribution. ITI should, ther.ru.q
hor," goRe
. eqripn.renfs
lor purchase of heavy e.iecirical
thrcrugh the stan<lard
rnanufaciurers. This point_was taken up *irfr
ifi,ri,o, ;;;;;;;
.could not satisfactorily
cxplain why they dicl ,roigo-in for pro_
curement through standarcl manufactureis.
LiJe Insurance Corporation of lrulia Ltd.
Electrical inst llotion work at LIC Mega L,entre
iluihlitg
Dclht
at
New
. (xv) LIC appointed Architect Consultanls at a fee of ZVa ot
the cost of fhe work for construction of rhis Lruilding.
LIC de_
posited an amount of Rs. 32.75 lacs
wrth NDVIC tiwards the
cost of providing electrical connections to the
builtirng. The
entire work regarding provision of electrical c<rnnecfions
including
the design,. procur€ment of materials and supervision r,vas
dono
,exclusively by NDMC and *ris entire
operaii,rn was; not liable.
to supervrsion by the consultants and, there4ore, they
were not
'errtitled to any charges in respect of this arnount depisited with
\DI1C. Nevertheless, confrary to tfts pl6yjsia;", of th" uur."ntent, I-IC included -this deposit while working out the total
cost
,of the Project for the purpose of. paying professbnal
citarses t<t
103
the consjJ{ants. Thereby an excess pay'ment of Rs. 65'460 was
made to th'e consultaots.
into another agreement rrith another firnr
providing
construcfion managemetrt services
for
of consultants
LIC had
entered
for the Project, to whom chtges @l%o of the cost oI the Project
wcre payable. This flrm also had nothing to do in connec'tion
with ire ptrovision of service connectioqr to the buildilg, which
was unhertaken by NDMC' Nevertheless the amount of
Rs. 32.73 lacs deposited with NDMC was included in the cost
oi tlc rrc,iect forlworking ou1 the charges payable to fhis firm
to
as well, and an unjustified payrnent of Rs' 32,730 was made
them.
Thus rhe extra amount paid to private parfies on the above
two counts alone was Rs' 98'190'
Municipal C'atryorution of Delhi
Purcha.rc
o
j
plants by Horticultural Division-t
l{s' 'X'05 racs were
p,:,rchased tluring i982-83 and worth Rs' 412 lacs during
iSS: Sa (a period of i5 months) without calling for open ten'
dels Fath purchase order was kept below an anlount of
(xvi) For this
sub-division plants worth
subRs. ?5,000 by placing orders separately for eaclr specie and
almost
soecie. tl,e estimated rates while making purclrases were
Nursery'
<l^or.rbte rhe rates of Government Sunder
500 saJ,lings of coconuts costing Rs. 15,000 were proposed
to be planlcd in the jurisdiction of MCD, although it is well
knorvn thal coconuts cannot thrive in Delhi'
a physical verification of the site of Dr' Ran Bougainvilla,: not a single plant was seen, although 858 Ncx' had
l]een rccordctl in the measurement book, for lvhich a payment
of Rs. 10,900 had been made.
During.
104
r
I
t
I
I
N ational
I
Laling 66KV Double Circuit Transmission lirc front Devi Ghat
Il
F,
r
i
llydro-electric Power Corpordiott
to Chambel in Nepal
(xvii) For this work whfoh was of a turokey nature, in respotrse to invitation of open tenders four fenders were received'
The lowest ofier of M/s. Amrapali Structurals Pvt. Ltd. for sup
ply of tower materials at Rs. 31.07 lacs was not accE)ted on
the ground that this firm did not have expericnce in the design
and fabrication of towers for extra high voltage lines. Although
the frm had contended thal they had designed and supplied such
structures for sub-stations earlier, the decisiou to reject their
ofier was taken without checking up ftom lhis fum whether it
was in a position to get the design done/checked from reputed
firms, acceptable to NHPC. Instead, the sect)nd lowest tendet
of \4js, ANCONS Engineering Co. at Rs. 37.13 lacs was accepted. NHPC thereby lost an amount of Rs' 6.06 lacs.
N ati onal
Se e ds C orpor
ation
ol internal and external electrificalion at Seetl Processing Plant, tlmti-Thnnzsar Distt. Kutukshetra, IIaryana
Provisiott
( xviii) Open tenders were invited for thjs work il response
to which foui firms tendered.' The offer of the lowest tenderer
at Rs. 6,93,061 was ignored by the tender evaluation committee
on account of the firm's failure to furnish particulars of their
registration number etc' The w.ork was aw:uded to the second
Iowesl tenderer at Rs. 7 ,28,242. However, since this firm
failed to sign the forrnal conlract agre€merf' the contract was
cancelled. Negotiations were thereafter conducted with the tlird
and fouttb lowest tenderers and the work was ultimately awarded to the third lowest tenderer at Rs. 9,61,198. At the time of
acceptancc of the tender on 7-l-1982, the iustified cost had not
been worked out. Later on, the justified oost wa! worked out
at Rs. 8.73 lacs. No reasons have been given by the Corporation for accepting an umeasonably higb tender'
105
s/3 Cvc/84-8.
New Delhi Municiqsl Committee
Constrrction of hotel at No.
t,
Man Singh Road, New Delhi,
SH : Superstrrcture.
(xix) New Delhi Municipal Committee in collaboration with
Mls. Indian Hotel Corpomtion had undertaken the construction
of a 350 room hotel at Man Singh Road, New Delhi. As per
the collaboration agreemert, NDMC was to exercise fulI control
over approval of plans, speciflcations, estimates, tender documents,
etc. It was also required to supervise the execution of the work.
The contract was awarded to a private party. The construction
was examined technically through the intensive examination
carried out by the CTE s Organisation in 1978. ft was seen
that NDMC had failed to exercise its responsibilitles properly
and ellectively not only with regard ,o 11tg sxr3gution of the work
but even io resp€ct of some of the basic requirements of the agreemeftt. Even the teclnical sanction of the estimafes of the workwas not accorded by NDMC. The estimate doct'rnent amounting to Rs, 203 lakhs prepared by the consultanf is reportully unfraceable both with the NMDC and M/s. Indian Hotel Corporation. During the inspection carried out by the CTF's Organisa-
tion, fhe following
lapsesT
irreg.rlarities were highlighted
:-
'
(a) No tecbnical sanction of the estimates and approval
qf notice inviting tender was accoided by NDNIC.
(b) M/s. Indian Hotel Corporation had deviated from
the original plan in the course of ttre execution of
the work without obtaining the approval of NDMC.
(c)
The tenders invited by the architect were not sealed
and the fender papers of some of thc private parties
were found to be lacking several vital details about
the description and the quantity oI the work.
(d) Cuttings/couections/overwrifinp in the
tender
the
architect'
paFrs haat not boen attosted by
106
{e) The descriptions and
specifications followed for
various items of the fender were not similar to those
available in Delhi Schedule Rates, 74.
(f)
Many details particularly, relating to the qualiry
of material were omitted frour the agreement which
appaxently caused indirect benefit to the contracfor.
{g)
Many deficiencies in regard to the execution of items
such as masonry, RCC plaster, flo'oring and dado and
wood work were noticed.
(h) The theoretical
consumption statement for cernent
and load consumption were nof forrvarded by M7s.
Indian Hotel Co4roration along with the bills.
1i)
There was also an abnormal delay in the completion
of the project.
Pursuant
to the said inspection of the work by the CTEs'
Organi..ation, protracted correspondence was exchanged between
the Organisation and the Chief En$neer, NDMC for the identiffcafion of the responsib lity of the persons who had committed
these irregulai'ities ot had failed to exercise prcper supervision
over the execution of work, Howevet, in 1981, the CTE s Organisaticn was informed that the NDMC had resolved to condqne
the lapses mentioned by the Organisation in their inspectiors.
Thus instead of taking any efiective steps to proceed against
the officers found responside for the various irregularities and
lapses mentioned above, the matter wds allowed to rest.
Neryeli Lignite Corporation
Supply ol nedium voltage switchgear in connection with construction of second th:ermal power station
(xx) Open tenders were iovited for supply of
complete
medium voltage switchgear. Of the offers received, the lowest
on€ was that of M/s- Control & Switchgear (C&S) and the next
107
Iowest was that of M,/s. Larsens & Toubro (I*T). It was'
decided to split up the total work and award it to the two lowesL
tcndere,rs-M,/s, C&S and M/s. l,&T. However, in awarding the
rvork to the two tenderers in this manner, the consideration of
theL lower offers for individual items was not kept in visw.
The offer of M,zs. C&S for switchgeat equipment for lignite
handling system was Rs. 31.94 lacs whilc that of M/s. L&T was
Rs. 29,43 lacs. Thrs item was, however, awarded to M/s. C&S.
A similar mistake was committed while awarding work for
supply of tfuee numbers switchgears roquired for TG valve aad
motor control centre. Although the offer of M,/s. C&S for this
item was higher by Rs. 1.18 lacs, supply of two nunbers was.
ordered from M/s, I*T and one number was ordered from
M/s, C&S. The result was ao excess expenditure ofil.69 tacs
by the Corporation.
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd
Pldnting trees
(xxi) The CTEs' Organisation observcd, during a check of,
the four horticulture works pertaining to planting of trees by
N eyveli Lignite Corporation that mass plantation was beiag dope
without any approved landscape plan. Watering of plants, being
done through the contractor, constituted S$Vo to 'lOVo of tbn:
total tendered finount, resulting in payment of about Rs. I lac
oo accoout of watering in connection with each work. These.
payments were being made on the presumption that all the plants
were being watered daily, while in fact there was no physical
counting of the plants being daily ryatered. Itspectior Lad also,
shown that many plants had not been watered at all.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission
Interior decoration work for ONGC
Offices
at
RCF Conplex,
Chembw, Bomboy
(xxii)
Tenders for the interior decoration of four floors for
ONGC offices at Bombay were ir:vited sometime in April, 1984
from only four prequalified tenderers. The tenders received were
108
22.61Vo, 22.84Vo, 4[.OBVo al.d 55.2270 above the estimatsd
of Rs. 22,94,729 (per floor).
,cost
The third lowest tenderer had put io a condition askng for
.an advance of 25Vo of the tendered cost.
Negotiations were held
was awarded floor-wise
to
$ith all the 4 tenderers and the work
each of them at 22.617o above the
cost, However, while awarding the work all tho four
to be paid "interest-free mobilisation advancc" at
the rate ot 25Vo of contract value, Thus, in fact, the work
.€stimated
.were allowed
'was awarded
at a higher cost thdn the tenders received,
Faradip Port ?rust
lnstollation and commissianins ol switchgears and translormen
lor ore handling facilities at Paradip Port Tru,st
(xxiii) In the course of intensive examination of the above
work by CTEs' Organisation, if was noticerd that over-payment
had been made to the private party in respect of some items
like excise duties, provision of space heaters, epoxy painting and
minic diagrams. The chief objection of the CTEs' Organisation
with regard to these items was that these were covered rvithin
the scope of the tender specifications. The firm had nowhere
indicated in their tender that these items would be treated outside
the work as stipulated therein.
These payments resulted in avoidable loss of Rs. 1.04 lakhs
to the Port Trust by way of payments as additional iterns. The
version of the Port Trust was that in the course of n€gotiatioas
the party had clarified that these items were extra and since
the firm was willing to execute the work only by treating these
ifems as extra, it was not possible to deny this claim to them,
The Port Trust pleaded' that these payments could not be regarded as irregular. The Commission feels that while the pal'ment
already made to the firm on account of trrese items cannot be
now recovered, negotiations conducted with the party were wrong
since there was no need to obtain the confirmation of the party
about those items which vt'ere alreadv covered in the tender.
109
The Commission accordingly advised Paradip Port Trust that
the responsibility fo1 this lapse be fixed on the concerned officers.
The Paradip Port Trust have, however, reiterated their earlier
view-point that no action ir this regard needs to be taken,
Rashtriya Chcmicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Construction
quarters at Thal
o! type 'A'
(xxiv) RCF are constructing a staft colony ai Kurnul-Vashvi
Area for thefu employ€es working in Thal Project. Construction
of 204 units in 17 blocks has been taken up in the frst phase.
In the first running dccount bill, a payment of Rs. 3,54,330 was
made on account of de-watering of foundation pits and trenches,
the quantity of water being 7,874 Hp. hrs. In the second running account bill, the amount proposed for payment on this
account was Rs. 6,70,905 for a total qudnttty of 14,909 Hp. hrs.
However, payment of this anount was withheld. In thg third
runaing account bill, the quantity was reduced to that mentioned
in the first running account bill ,and the rate rvas also reduced
to Rs. 1O from Rs. 45 Hp. hrs. The total amount paid in the
third running account bill was thus Rs. 78'740.
No reasons have been recorded for reducing the quantity or
the rate in the third running account bill. The payment for dewatering was made on account of water logging due to tidal
waves. However, the agfeement ifem undEr which the payment
was rnade specifled rate of Rs. 45 Hp. br. {or "de-waterilg of
fcundation pits & trenches by punping out water due to broken
nains" etc. No quantity was specified against this item and
financial implications of this item, were also not considered during
the evaluation of tenders. Several clauses of the agreement also
specified that de-watering if required would be carried out At
the expense of the contractor. Therefore, even the payment of
Rs. 78,740 under this item was unjustified.
Rashtriya Chemicats
&
Fertilizers Ltd.
oI trces
(xn') RCF had a programme oJ
Planting
plantinq 60,000 trees/
saplirgs in their factory area at Thal Vaishet, IVfaharashtra, at a
110
I
cost of Rs. 13.50 lacs. The market rate analysis showed that
the justifed rate for planting the trees/saplings and maintaining
these for 12 montbs was Rs. 15 per plant, *'heteas the rate paid
to the contractor-lv1/s. A. A. Pradhan was Rs. 22.50 per plant.
Payments worth Rs. 1 lac had been made to the contractor without rnaintaidng any measurement book for the work done. The
quantity of actual execution of the work in one sample checked
was found to be even less tian 5O%.
Resuve Bank
ol
India
Provision of electricat work during constructicti bf officers' qumters lor Reserve Banil< ol India, Calcutta
(xxvi) Tenders for this work wete invited by RBI only
from tlose frms who were adjudged as suitable by the consultants engaged by the Bank. After receipt of tenders, the consultants recommendd that the lowest tender at Rls. 7,95 '972
was quite low and unworkable, They recommended that the
51h lowest ofier at Rs. 9,34,154 being reasonable and workable,
miy be accepted. The local ofrce of the Bank recoomended
to their Central Office that the ofier of the second lowest tenderer
at Rs. 8,94,024 may be accepted. The Central Office, holever,
accepted the 3rd lowest offer at Rs. 9'11,308' ,
The lowest tenderer who was a registered Class-I Contractor
of CPWD, had executed a number of electrical works and its
works
*ofier was quite comparable with the cost of other similar
while
evaluatthen in progress at Calcutta. The Central Oflice
ing the tenders for acceptance based their decision on the cash
in hand in the current account of the contractor, which is not a
relevant ground for adjudging the tenders. Also when tbe cqntractors were in lhe first instance selected for calling for tenders
bn the basis, amongst others, of adequacy of resoutces, the consideration applied by the Bank in evaluating the tenders was not
relevant. Thus the rejection of the lowest tenderer was not on
relevant and rational considerations.
lll
CIIAPTER 7
CTIIEF YIGILANCE OTT'ICERS
t.
7.1 Fwrctions.-A CVO is expected to function as a sp€cial
assistant directly accountable to the executive hcad of bis organi-
in thc matter of vigilance and to keep liaison with the
Commission and the CBI. In particular, he is responsible for
(i) .attending to complahts which come to the department for
investigation from various sourc€s, (ii) folowing up results of
inspections, (iii) arranging to send comments on CBI reports
to the CVG (iv) arranging to act upon the advice of the CVC
in regard to initiation of proceedings, (v) arranging to rake
sation
actioc on the second stage advice of the C\€ in regard to imposition of penalty or otherwise, (vi) advising on stetrx for preventil'e vigilance and (vii) furnishing periodical statistical returns
to the CVC, Since only pases having a vigilance angle are tobe
referred to the Commission for advice, it has been decided that
the CVO shall determine whether a particular case has a vigilance
angle or not. In cdses of doubt, the orders ol Secretary of the
department or Chief Executive of the public sector organisation
may be ob,tained. The work done by CVOs, as reported by
them, is given in Annexure 1.L and pendency with th€m as otr
3lst Decembel 1984 is analysed in Annexure 1.2. There is
considerable scope for improvement in the rate of disposal, Io
this connection, the Commission had suggpsted that additional
vigilance officers be deployed, if necessary, on ad-hoc, temporary
basis to clear these arrears within a reasonable time ftame.
7 .1.2. Statistical Retwru.---T\e qudrterly statistical returns
prescribed by the Commission are required to be sent by the
CVOs so as to reach the Commissios by the 15th day tollowing
thc respective quarters.
is regretted that in many cases, these
.It
112
are not reccived by thc due dates. It is also obscrved thet in
in figures'. Annexurc I'1
-uoy .ur., there are discrepancies
otganisations which have
those
of
(NB. l) contains the names
one
or more quartcrly
fltU autiog thc year in submitting
rerurns.
7,2.I Procedwe lor appointment of Chiel Vigilancc Offi'
cers .-According to the Ministry of Home Aftairs' Resolution
No. 2a/'7,164-/r^YD, dated 1l-2-1964, the Chief Vigilancc Offi'
cers in the departments are to be appointed in consultation with
the Central Vigilance Commission and no person whose appointment is objected to, will be so appointed. Suitable arrangemonts
may, however, be made by the appropriate authority to fill up
short vacancies for a period upto 3 months due to leave or other
reasons, without obtaining the concurrence of the CVC. Cases
have, how€ver, come to the notice of the Commission where the
CVOs-whether d-hoc or regular appointees-have bem
changed every three months or so, due to re-distribution of work
within the organisations. As a result the organisations concerned remained without regularly appointed or stable CVOs for
years together. The Commission has, therefore, advised the
to ersure that CVOs are not changed frequently
in any oase without prior consultation with the Com-
departments
and not
.
mission. The departments have been further advised that even
where changes are contemplated for administrative reasons, such
as transfers etc.. the Commission should be informed in advance
as a matter of courtesy.
7.2.2 The procedural instructions laid down by the Ministry
of Home Afiairs provide that the departments should send a
panel of names to the Commission so that oflicers having integrity, initative, drive, enthusiasm and aptitude for vigilarnce work
are selected and appointed as CVOs. The CVOs in the Ministries/Departments have to be at least of the rank of Deputy
Secretary. In public sector organisations, they should be in the
scales of pay, the midmum of which is not less than Rs. 1,800'
lt3
The Ministry of Home Affairs have also laid down that gcpdment: which have to handle a large number of vigilance cases,
e.9., Railway Board, Department of Steel, Ministry of Defence,
Ministry of Shipping and Transport etc. should have CVOs of
the rank of Joint Secretary or at least Dilector. The Commissicn has in the past reiterated that while maklng appointments
of CVOs, the procedure for prior consultation with the Central
Vigilance Commission should be followed meticulously. Even
thcn some d€partments have been changing their CVOs, sometimes soon after their appointment, for one reason or the other,
without prior consultation with the Commission. The Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms have, therefore,
issucd instructions during the year asking the departments to
cnsure that the officers sponsored for the posts of CVOs are,
as f*r as possible, available to hold the said post for atleast three
years, having regard to their tenure/date of retirement etc. They
have also advised the departpents that frequent trans_fers of
oflicers in these posts are undesirable.
7.2.3 Considerations determining' Selection, Appointment
and Tenure of Chiel Vigilance Officers.--The Comniission feels
that in big deparfments,/organisations, a CVO should be whole
ttme, i.e. he should not be burdened with other responsibilities.
Furthermore, in order to be objective and effective, he should
normally be an outsider and should not have been an employee
of the organisation in the past. Those CVOs rvho have come
on deputation from other services, should be {unctionally equated
with/given the status of head of department. Officers of all
services and cadres should be considered, and the field of selection
not restrict€d to omcers of a particular service or State. It
has also been decided that all proposals in respect of appointment
of CVOs in public sector undertakings may be sent to the
Ccmmission through the administrative departments concerned.
Since the CVO functions as a special assistant to the Chief
-Executive in a public undertaking, it is desirable that he enjoys
complete confidence of the Chief Executive. The Commission
114
has accordingly suggested that
in the proposals for
appointment
of CVOs i" lfre puUtic sector, the viervs and preferences of the
Chief Executives should also be indicated'
'
.2.4 "the Commission has had occasion to consider the
as
CVOs
ofrcers
question of appointment of non-departmentalin sensitive departments and undertakings and has advised the
bigger ooes such as Air Indra, India Tourism Development
C#poration, Indian Oil Corporation, Fertilizer Corporation of
India, State'Trading Corporition, Steel Authority of India, Cement Corporation of India, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore
Ltd. etc., to appoint outsiders as whole-time CVOs, fot greater
objectivtrty and efiectiveness' Some of these organisations have
rcacted favourably but the rest have not yet compfied with the
advice of the Commission.
7
.2.5 The instructions tegarding deputation of government
selants ts public sector undertakings visualise eventual permanent
absorption of such oftcers in public sector undertakings and
give them a maximum time limit of three years to exercise their
Jption for permanent absorption in the uu-detakings or for tbeir
reversion to the parent departments. The Commission considers
that the nature of work of CVOs is suoh that they shoulrJ not be
permanently absorbed in public sector undertakings. A CVO
on deputation to a public sector undertaking aftgr working for
a redsonable period should be replaced by another officer on
<leputation. The Commission has lalso noted that norgnally
officers of the rank of Joint SecretaryT4Directcr/I'G. PoIicelDIG
of Police belonging to A11 India Services aro posted as CVOs
on deputation in the public sector undertakings. The tenure of
such officers in the Ministries is five years' The experience gained
in the Commission shows that tenure of a maximum of three years
allowed to CVOs on deputation is too short for any officer to
be efiective in a public sector undertaking. This is because he
takes some time to get familiar with the orgdnisation, its staff
and procedures and pr,actices and only thereafter can he develop
initiative fbr effective functioning. The Commission has,
7
ll5
therefore, suggested to the governnent to review their existing
inshuctiona with regard to the deputafion of ofr,",ers as CVOs
in public sector undertakings, with a view to exempting them
from permanent absorption in the undertakings, and prescribing
-the same deputation terms for them as. would be applicablg to
them if they wcre ou deputation to Ministries, Thc Commisrior
has yct to hear from the Government about this proposal,
If
is found that after an ofrcer working as CyO has
it takes a long time to appoint B new
incumbent. Also thcre is very quick turnover of CVOs on
account of normal administrative reasons duch as promotions
etc. As a result, the vigilance work in that particular organrsa_
tion suffers during the interregnum, The Commission has,
therefore, strggested that the proposal for appointment of a nerv
CVO should be moved well in advance of the existing incumbsnt
relinquishing charge due to retirement, transfer, reversion to
parent cadre etc., so that the post does not refrain vacant.
Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms havc not yet
rcponded constructively to this suggestion.
7,2.6
relinquished charge,
7
.3 Centrcl Board of Direct Taxes.-It was reported in the
Iast annual report of the Commission that the post ol
Chief Vigilance Officer in Central Board of Directt Taxes
(CBDT) had beeq lying vacant since May, 1980 and that none
of the names contained in the panel furnished in August, 19g1
was found suitable and, therefore, a fresh panel of namcs was
awaited since 1982. During the year under report, the
Commission received a panel of names from the CEDT and
the name of one of the olficers of the rank of the
Ccmmissioner of Income-tax, named in the panel, for appointrnent.
Though the Commission's approval was conveyed to the CBDT
on 26th October, 1984, formal appointment of the
ofrcer
approved by the Commission is still awaited.
7.4 Income Tax Deparhwn!.-{he Commission has formuIated a policv that it would not entedain cases for advice unless
these are routed througb ai ofncer approved by the Commissicn.
116
As stated in the last annual report, since the cases of Group'B'
officers of Income-iax Depetment were. being referred to ihe
Commission by the Director (Vigilauce ) in the Directonte of
lnspection, the Commission had suggested .to the CBDT that
either the Director (Vigilance) should be appointed in consultation with the Commission, as is the practice for appointment
of Chief Vigilance Offcers, or all cases from the Directorate
should be routed through the Chief Vigilance Officcr, CBI)T.
Although tfris suggestion was made in February, 1983, there
has been no tesponse from the Dqrartment.
7.5 Nationsl BuiWings Construction Corparation Limiteil.ir the last annual repolt of the Commission that it
had taken a view in August, 1980, when the post of Chief
Vigilance Officer in the National Buildings Construction
Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) fell vacant, that the NBCC should
appoint an olficer from outside on deputation, to function as
a full-time CVO in the organisation. Tte name of an officer
belonging to an AII-India Service recommended bv the Ministrv
of Works & Housing was accordingly approvQd by the Commission
in December, 1981. But it was later reported to the Commission
that the tenure trf the concerned ofrcer had cxpired in April,
1982. Another panel of names was furnished bv the NBCC in
September, 1983. Since this panel had not beeJroutet{ through
the administrative Ministry, the comments of the Ministry oa
this panel were called for by the Commission in October, 19g3.
The Ministry of Works & Housing, however, furnished a fresh
panel in September, 1984. However, the omcers named therein
were not considered suitable for the post by the Commission,
A fresh panel of names has, therefore, been again called for
from the Ministry ot Works & Housing in October, 19g4, which
It
was stated
is
awaited.
7.6 Cement Corporation of India Ltd.-,In 19g3, the Com_
mission undertook a review of vigilance work done in various
Ministries/Departments/public Sector Undertakings and noted
that vigilance work in the Cement Cotporation of frrOiu Ltd.
(CCI) was not receiving adequate attention.
The Ccmmission.
117
therefore, advised the Undertaking that they should havo an
oficer from outside, of the rank of DI6 of Police as the CVO.
Although the CCI were of the view that vigilance set-up in the
Undertaking was working well and there was no necessity of
having a full-time CVO, the Commissiod in September, 1983'
reiterated that there was a need for an outsider to be the CVO
The Comm.issiqn did not approve the
ad hoc appointment of an oficer proposed by the company in
April, 1984, and advised the Chairman- cum-Managlng Director
of the Undertaking.
to perform the functions of CVO aiso, until a regular appointsent
as advised by the Commission, was proposed and made. The
of its own ollicers as a
bcen approved by the
not
whole-time CVO who also has
is yet to receive a
however,
Commission. The Commissioq
Undertaking have now appointed one.
panel of names of outside officers for consideratioo' The rnatter
Las been reported to the Department of Industrial Development
who also have not responded in any positive manner'
7.7 In some depattments, appointmeni.s lrgainst the posts
of CVOs ha'r'e not been made on a regular basis, in consultation
with the Commission, and ad hoc arrangements have continued
ior periods which cannot be justifred. The position in respect
of some suc.h departments is discussed briefly below :
(i)
Bengal Chenricals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
In August, 7982, ttre Bengal Chemicals and Pharnaceuticals
Ltd. had appointed their Director (Finance) as a part-time
Chiel Vigilance Ofrcer. Since then the Commission has bcen
pursuing with the organisatioo and the Ministry of Chemicals
and FertilizerS the question of submission of a panel of names
for appointment of a CVO on a regular basis, without, however,
any success so far.
(ii)
Bharat Brakes and Valves Ltd.
Since December, 1982, the functions of the Chief Vigilance
Ofrcer in Bhaiat Brakes and Valves Ltd. have been assigned to
ll8
the Chief of Personnel and Administration, on a part-time ba.sis,
es aa, ad hac afiangemflt. A panel of names of four off.cers
was furnished to the Commission direct by the organisation with-
ouJ routing the proposal throlgh the Department of Hoavy
lndustr-v. The confidential character roll dossiers of rhe officers
named in panel were also not furnished to the Commission.
The Commission had, therefore, asked the organisation to route
their proposal through the Department of Heavy Industry and
also send the complete C.R. dossiers of the officers, named in
the panel, for consideration by the Commission. Although the
Department of Healy Industry submitted the panel to the
Commission in I\4arch 1984, the C.R. dossiers of the officers
ccrncerned have again not been sent so far. As a result, the
Commission has not been able to consider the proposal.
(ili)
British India Corporation Ltd.
In July 1982, the British India Corporafion Ltd. had adopted
a resolution accepting the Commission's jurisdiction over thelr
employees. The Commission had in'Sepfember 7982 asked for
a panel of names of atleast three officers frorn the Corporation
through the Ministry of Commerce for considerilg the appointinent of Chicf .Vigilance Ofrcer therein. The Commissioq is
yet to receive the panel.
(iv) Central Mines Planning and Design Institute
In November, 1981, the functions of thc Chief Vigilance.
Officer were assigned by the organisation to a Chief Mning
Engineer, on a paf-time basis, without consulting the
Commis5i6a. Since then the Commission has been pursuing
with the Departmetrt of Coal the question oI submission of a
panel of names for appointment of a CVO on a regular basis
without, however, any success so far.
(v)
Coot lmlia Ltd.
The Chief Vigilance Officer appointed in Coal India Ltd.,
consultation with the Commission, relinquished charge in
December, 1983. The Department of Coal did not submit a
in
n9
of names for considering the lppointmcnt of a succcscor
CVO, but recommeoded a single name. In July, 1984, the
Commission rciterated that as per proccdure prescribcd i'n this
pasel
behalf, a panel of atleast thrce names of ofrcers may be fumished
to the Commission. However, in the meantime, thg Commission
approved the appointment of the officer rccommended by the
Department to act as 'a part-time CVO on ad hoc bais. Since
then, a panel of namts has not been furnishe.d 1s 1tl6 Qqnmi5sion.
The Commission considers that the posting of a regular CVO
has been unusually delayed sod that vrgilance work in this
seusitive organisation is suffering badly in the abscnce of a wholetime CVO.
(vi')
Employees' State lnsurance Corporation
The Chief Vigilance Ofticer appointed in Emplqyees' State
Insurance Colporation relinquishod charge of that post in
October 1982, on promotion. Since then the Commission has been
awaiting receip of a panel of names of suitable officers, through
the Department of l,abour, . for approving a suitable name for
appointment as a Chief Vigilance Ofrcer. In April, 1984, the
Department of Labour recommended the name of single ofrcer
for the post of Chief Vigilance Officer. The Commission,
howwer, asked for a panel of atleast three names ,as per the
procedme prescribed in this regard. In August, 1984, the
Department stated that in the Errployces' State Insurance
Corporation, there were only two officers of the status required
for the post of Chief Vigilance Officer. The two officers
mentioned by ESIC, however, did not include the nane of the
officer who was earlier sponsored for the post. .The Commission,
therefore, asked the Department in Septernber, 1984, to clmfy
how they had stated that there were only two officers of the
requisite status available for being pbsted as CVOs, whereas they
themselves had earlier recommeaded the name of another o,fhcer
for that post. The Department's reply is stifl awaited.
120
(vti)
Handicratts and Handlooms Exports (orporation of India
Ltd.
In May, 1982, the Handicrafts and Handlooms Et'ports
Corporation of India Ltd., reported to the Commission that the
Ctief Vigilance Oftcer appointed in censultatior witb
the
Commission, had been transferred abroad. They submitted a
panel of tbree names for the Commission's consideration for
approving the name of a suitable ofrcer for appointment as a
CVO. The Commission ,advised the organisation send the
"o the up
proposal through the llinistry of Commerce alongt'ith
to{ate confidential characle5 roll dossiers of the officers
sponsored. In November, 1984, the Ministry recommended a
singls 11n'rr for the post of Chief Vigilance Officer, stating that
since the offcer concerned wa's a General Manager in the
organisation, there was no need for a panel cf names. The
Commission, howevm, insisted on a panel of names, which is still
awaited.
(
vjii)
Hindu,Jttln Steelwoiks Construction Ltd.
In May, 1979, the Chief Vigilance
Officer
in
Hindustan
Ltd. left the orgdnisation and another
officer, a General Manager, was assigned the functions ot
Chief Vigilance Officer also, on a part-time basis. The
Steelworks Construction
Commission had been pursuing with the organisatton the matter
relating to submission of a panel of names for considering
appointment of CVO. I{owever, there was no satisfactory
r€sponse from the organisation. The Commission had, therefore,
advised that tle Chief Executive of the organisation may himself
look after the functions of CVO also. Even though it was
stated by the Department of Steel, in February, 1983, ,hat the
Chief Executive was being advised to function as Chief Vigilance
Officer ti the appointment of a regular lhief Vigilai'rce Ofrcer
was finalised, in fact, the functions of Chief Vigilance Officer,
were assigned to another General Manager in April, 1983, on
the retirement of the General Manager earliar firnctioning as
CVO. Even thereafter. a panel of names has not been srrbmitted
121
s/3 cvc/84--9.
to the
a panel had been obtained
Department from the Department of Personnel {k
Admidstrative Reforms by June, 1984. Thus r^o Chief Vigihnce
Officer has been functioning in this organisation, with the approval
of the Commission, since May 1979,
Commission although such
by the
(ix)
Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd.
In July 1982, the Commission had noted that Metal Scrap
'frading Corporation Ltd. which was earlier a subsidiary of Steel
Authority of India Ltd., had been brought Llder the direct
control of Department of Steel. The Commission, lherefore,
advised the Department to furnish a panel cf names r:f suitable
officers for considering the appointment of CYO. ,{lthough over
two years have passed, the required panel has not yet beetr sent
to the Commission for its consideration.
(.x) Nationcl Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.
The Chief Vigilance Officer appointed in Narional Thermal
Power Corporation Ltd. relirquished charge on 3lst N4arch,
1983 oa attaini.ng the age of superannr.ration. In Iune, 1983,
NTPC recommended a single name for consideration .rf the
Commission for appointrnent as Chief Vigilance Officer. But
the Commission asked for a panel of atleast three names as per
the procedure prescribed in this regard. A panel of rhree rrames
was accordingly submitted by NTFC in December, 1983, dircct
to the Commission. The Commission advised NTPC to rouie
the proposal through the Department of Powcr. The Department
of Power, however, have requested the Ministry cf Home Affairs
for a panel of names, which is still awaited.
(xi)
Neelachal Ispat Ltd.
In July. 1982, the Comrnission had noted that a new com.
pany, viz,. Neelachal Ispat Ltd. had been floated under the
Department of Steel. The CommisSion, therefore, advjsed the
Departmenf to send a panel of names of suitable oftcers for
considering the appointment of CVO in the company. A panel
of names was received fron the Depa ment of steel in May,
122
that the oftcers named therein were not
was'
ii,r- tequitite status. Tlre attention of the Departmenl
in
that
"i
th.r"fore, drawn to the existing ilstructions reqridng CVos
as
undertakings' the ohcers lo be ap'pointed
ilit;;;
1800 or
wittr
should atleast be in a pay scale beginning
-n1'
A fresh panel of names, asked for in June' 1984' is still
1984 but
it
was {ound
"'U."..
awaitd.
t.
I
I
tr
I
(xti) Smith Stanistrcet Ptannaceuticals Ltd'
Thc Commission has been pursuing the question of the
in Smith
,,ppointment of a regular Chiei Vigilance Officer
without
1982'
February
iiinirtr""t Pharmaceuticals Ltd. since
the
undertaking
of
p*iti"* r'csponse' Difierent functionaries
Vigilance
"ny
Oesig;ted by the managem ent as ad .hae Chief
ur" O.i"g"from-time
poor
attention
been
has
to time' The result
Offficers
is
Commission
The
to vigilance work in the organisation'
olgan$atlon'
painetl at tbe lack of response {rom
(xiii) ,\rate trnding Corporatian
in
T'hc Comrnission has taken the view that CVO in STC'
faken
deputaon
order to be rnore effective, should be an oflicer
The
basis'
full-tine
on
a
funbtion
should
and
outside
tion from
expiry
last CVO of STC relinquished charge in July 1982 on the
On rcceipt of a panel
of three namm, the comrnission approvcd one oI them for
appoinfment as CVO in August, 1982' I-Icwcver, ;lre offt'er
r,ppn"u-d by the Commission was not appointed as CVO' A
fiash panel in this regard is still awaited from STC through the
of his
cxtended tenure
of
deputation
'
Ministry of Commerce'
123
.
CHAPTER
8
PREVE.NTIVE YIGIT,ANCE
8.1 Apart from tendering advice in individual cases of
corruption, 14ck of integrity etc., an important function assigned
to the Cornmission by the Government Resolution of February,
1964, is that of undertaking review of administrative procedutes
and practices in so far as these relate to maintenance of integrity
. in administration and where called for to advise appropriate
nrodi{ication
in
such procedures. The need
for
undertaking
studies in preventive vigilance has been €ngaging the attention
of the Commission for a long time. However, for want of staff,.
il has not been able to take up work of this nature in a significant
Jnan ner.
8.2
In April,
1981, the Commission had asked
the
Covgrnment to augment its stafi strength both for 'punitive' and
'preventive' vigilance work. While a review of the need for
additional staff for punitive work was conducrcd i,nd some
minimal additional staff sanctioned, the DP&AR stated in August,
1981 that the proposal regatding provision of staff for preventive
vigilance work would be examined later. In October, 1982 the
Ccntral Vigilance Commissioner sent a detailed n te to the
Government regarding the leed for setting up a preventive
Vigilance Wing
in the Commission. In this
note
it
was
enphasized that an adequately staffed separate wing w.ithin the
Commission was necessary for study, research ;lnd investigalion
into various administrative practices and procedures which gave
rise to corruption and other malprdctices.
8.3
A repiy was received in June, 1983 from Governmant
of this nature could be cttrusted to
the Administrative Reforms Wing of that l)epartment in consul:
tation with the Commission and the Departments to which these
suggesting that some studies
124
7
was also suggested that an officer of the
Commission may be ,associated with ;hese s'"udie;. The
Commission pointetl out that the responsibility assigned to the
Ccmmission lor undertaking such studies was indepe.rJelt ancl
direct; the Department of Administrative if'eforms was concetned
with procedures and practices on a wider scale and about
simplification and rationalisation thereof in Government
Departments only. Tire Commission, however, had jurisdictittn
over not only Government Departments but also the entire
public sector, and was concerned with studying only those procedures and practices that generated corruptioo and other
malpractices on the part of public seflants. Therefore, the
proposed studies could only be undertaken by tire Commission
independently, keeping in view the'objectives for lvhich such
studies were required. The Commission was, however, willing
to take a Unit of the Administrative Reiorms Wing of the
Department under its direct administrative control in furlirerance
of this objective.
might relate.
It
8.4 Thereafter. the matter was discussed by the Central
Vigilance Commissioner with officers of the DP&AR, in June
1983, when the latter conceded that the studies proposed by the
Commission were difierent from those undertaken by the
Department of Administrative Relorms; and agreed lhat thc
Commission's request for staff for manning its proposed
preventive Vigilance Wing would be caretully considered by the
Government. It was, however, suggested by them that till such
time as additional stafi was made available to the Commission,
ons or two studies of the nature contemplated by the Commission,
miglrt be conducted by the Department of Administrative Reforrns
under the guidance of the Commission. Meanwhile, they desired
that the Commission might submit a revised memorandun't
regarding its staff requirements and.related matters.
8.5 In July, 1983, the Commission furnished a memorantlum
oncc again giving detailed justification for setting up a preventive
Vigilance Wing in the Commission and enclosing particulars of
the minimum stafi requirements thereof, and at the same timc
125
reiieraled, for the reasons already given that no useful purpcse
lvoultl be served in entrusting the studies to the Depariment of
Administrative Reibrms. However, in Octobcr 1983, Governmcni reiterated that to begin with, a task-forc+ comprising of
oliicers drawn from the Commission, AR Wing of DP&AR and
th,r concerned Departments might be asked to go into selected
firlds oI study.
''
8.6 ln December, 1983, the Commissi,:n (rnce again pcinied
contemplated by the Comrnission were
tlualitatively of a different natwe than those usually undertaken
b;, the Department of Administrative Refolms trnd that ths
( lornmission had a direct responsibility in llte uratter rvhich could
nct be discharged by entrusting the work to a task-force of th:
t.vpe referred to by them. Besides, the Commission's staft
positiori was so tight that it was not in a position to spare any
of its existing officers for this work. The Cornrnission also
pointed out that it was on account of its consciousness of thc
nced to exercise marimum economy in administrative expenditure
that it had asked for the barest minimum of stafi for lhe proposed
preventive Vigilance Wing. Financial constraints and the need
f,x kespllg administrative expenditure to a minimum have all
aiorg been the reasons advanced by Governmellt fcr not
cxamining the request of the Commission on m€rits.
or
rt lhat the studies
8.? During the year under report, the Commission continued
to persuade the Government to agree to its re,quest for setting
up, to begin with, a small skeleton preventive Vigilance Wing
in the Comrnission. The Government, however, took the view
that study of rules, regulations and proceduies of work in various
departments and public undettakings required a strong input
from the concemed organisations themselves and that such
studies could not be limited to vigilance aspect alone. Thc
Covernment accordingly did not consider it necessary to create
a separate organisation under the Commissiorl for the preventive
vigilance work. By their letter No. F7(17)-E(Coord)/81 dated
1
2th
126
June
,
I
981, the . Ministry of Fjnance (Department of
is no ban on creatron
Expenditure) have clearly stated that there
case' denving staff
anv
In
;i;; potri for vigilance work'
amount to a talse
rvouid
hrr an activity like preventive vigilance
that this negatrve
observe
;;:,;.*). TLe Ccmmission regrets to in coDsonallco
with the
stanil taken by Government is not quite
the provisions of para 2(xi) of. the Government
"f cf February' 1964' calling irpor the Commission to
tieir:lution
l'ioi iur. at such intervals as it considers suitable' review ot
tpi,"
they relate
pro.edure, and practices of administration iu so far as
io thc maintenance of integrity in adminisilation" '
8.8 The Commission is convinced tllat a really meaningful
and sustaincd attack on corruption can be mounled ouly
through preventive vigilance work' Study of -procedures
acts
and p-ractilces giving rise to corruptioi i'nd other dishonest
Morcover'
is an integral p-art o? the preventive vigilance activity'
concerned
is
DP&AR
of
Wing
Reforms
the Adrn"inisirative
Ccmmission's
whereas.the
Deparimenis
primarily with Government
including Bank';'
luciisdiciion extends to pubiic undertakings
prccedures and
ol
stLrdy
A
well'
l,,.oruo.. Companies etc. as
therefore' be
can'
public
undertak:lgs
practices pr"uuiling in
undertaken only by the Comrrission'
'
8.9 Further mcre, in view of the limitcd stafi at its disposal'
the Commissicn tenders dlrect advice olly in a lranclful of ca:es
of certain selected categories of o{ficials, although theit
Government Resolution by which it was set up, corftrs on
jurisdiction over all mattlrs to which the executive plwer of
ih. tlnion extends. For the remaining cases in respect of which
it does not tender direct advice, its onb means of check and
$upervision at present is through the statistical returns furnished
The
i',1, the departments and organisations of the Government'
work
Ctmmission feels that perioclical inspections of vigilance
being conductetl by the various departments is essential to ensure
that the departments concerned deal with vigilance work
cffectively. A preventive Vigrlance Wing in the Commission
rvould be able t; discharge this important function as well'
t2'7
In
to
8.10
order
cleate a consciousness amongst various
organisations regarding vigilance work and to acquaint them with
various procedural aspEcts such as those ssfuring to investigations,
departmental proceedings etc., the Commission organises courses
ior Chief
Vigila'nce Oftcers of various organisations and assists
them in organising similar courses for their functionaries Bt various
levels. The Commission also brings out publications such as
the Vigilance Manuals, Bulletins etc. in furtherance of the same
objective. For want of adequate staff, the Commission is
gravely handicapped in discharging these functions
in an effective
menner. The proposed preventive Vigilance Wilg would have
taken over these functions as well.
t28
.
CIIAPTER
9
GENtrRAL
PART I
rnissiol to watch and
".9.1 It remains the endeavour of the Cc".
a.Jd those of the organireview its own practices uod p,*"do"*
one hand' corruption
sations which it advises, so that while, on the
the machinery
;J;6t;";.", *" rnitti-itto, on the other hand'.
victimiquestionir-rg,
empty
by
hamstrung
of administration is not
that no comsation or red taPe. The Commission feels strongly
Neverlevel'
any
at
[omte rtoota'U" made with corruption taken in good faith
deciqions
iheless, honest mistakes made and
this particularly
need to be protected and it would like to impress
interference rn
of
outside
up* lt"otiguting agencies. Instances
the Commis'
by
aiministratiie malters continued to be troticed
their
perform
to
sion. Pubi;c sorvants would be well advised
procedures'
duties in accordance wth established rules and
of
progenitors
However, rules and procedures are also someumes
to be
need
therefore,
These,
malpractices and misconduct'
kept under constant revicw' Part II of t1-ris chapter co'ntaios
the Comsummaries of some of ths re€ommendations made by
to
imProvement
in
regard
mission durinq ihe war under review
in practices and Procedures.
9.2 Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeai Rules for public
sector undertakilgs circulated by the Bureau of Public Enterorises in 1974 have still not been adopted by a larep number of
public sector undertakings. Ttese include the Life Insurance
Corporation, Air India and Indian Airlines. As per the available
information, 134 public undertakings (listed at Annexure V)
129
have aLirrpted ihe Mcdel Rules' In respect oi the remalnine'
ti; i1la'iter is b:ing puisuc'J with the adndnistrative departments
e..,n,:rttl.
govern'
9.3 There is a provision in fre rules applicable to
delinquent
a
lr,jn,,. -servants that the pro:eeCings initiated against
continued. after
e r;rpl'ryce, while in seflice' can be
letirement.orwith a \tiew to withretirement,
fresh proceedings initiated after
hclding or efiecting a cut in pensicn payable to him' Howevff'
no corresponding provisions exist in the conduct and discipline
rulcs applicable t6 the employees of public sector undertahngs/
n,donalise.d banks for withholding/effecting cut in gratuity/etDp
loy;rs' contribution to provident fund'- Therefore, disciplinary
p.tcecdings asainst delinquent employees of the public sector.
u*:1er:ak'igs/ nationalised banks, initiated while they were in
. serv'ic:. eithel lapse or have to be .dropped on letirment or on
1s.r!qnat.ion. With a vievv to ensuring that delinquent employe€s
d. 8..'t escape thc consequences of their misconduct in such
cv::rtuaiit:es, the Commisiion had suggested to the Bureau of
Pu':lic Enterprises to advise the public sector undertakings that
a provision may be made by them in their respoctive corduct
antl discipline rules to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings
iniriated against the delinquent employees, i4 cases of grave misal[1s1 their retirement, so tlat it
comluct. mav continue
"vs1
wc uld be posslble . in suitable case's to withhold/effect a cut in
thc gratulty/employers' contribution to provident fund othcrwise
admissible to them.
'iire matter was also discussed in
a meeting in January,
1984, chaired by the Secretary, Departm€nt of Personnel and
Adninlstrative Reforms, ih'which ths repres€ntatives of the BPE
and the Banking Division of pepartment of Eccnomic Affairs
participated. It was decided in that meeting that instrtrtions as
sug'lested by the Commission in this regard may be issued by
the B,DFI and the Banking Division expeditiously. Althouglr
we are yet to hear about the matter fr.,rn thc BPE the Banking
130
that
D3pattnlrtt have since reported
a,:r ivc con'ider'ation'
the matter is unCc
its
:-t*t:li:t:.jt:r,ilili;
b'-€n.
9.;r The commission has
whlcn are
orqanisations'
dated
n"port, ,hu, ,'to'" and more
cou"**#ll-i"ai"'1
re
c.rvered under
the com""::t"^t:*
the jurisdiction^of
resolving il;;;t
tt2-ts64,wcrc
iL]'1"il*#
titltJrJ" "t*1tr'-guesltoo
mission and thus -uxioe
Howevcr' tbe
matters'
Ieqard to vigilance
of 'public
;-;;d T" i:t*": strictly not
ins s:ction 2i IPC in order
such bodies as are
*rnpfoy*i'of
servant' to cover
Union' such u,:
rvi h:n .,,be exeautive o"*., "i'tn"^.,yu"tnttn
Act etcir,.- n"gistfation cf societies
s,::ieri:s regis|t:re:l ooa",
;.;'-1 ;;; coosid:'ation of the Government'
of India s Repolution dated
According io the Governm€nt
was set up'. it has the
i l -2- 1964, b,' rvhich the Commission
9
5
;,;;;;,;,;"j*51-:iF"JT";yH'#*#;ii*Y#Ji
Commrssrot
Public S;rvice
is necessary both witt'
is the disciplilary authority, consultation
tho
323 of the Constitution) and
rhe UPSC lin terms ot atii"f"
Rcsolutlon
ot the Goveinm:nt
&;'(,; t.rin. ot paa 2 (xiv)occu'ioot
wliere there is a di{fear3
iiatcd I I-2-1964)- There
WK and the ry.C T to action
rence of opinion between tt'e
case' In such cases' the-Governme'lt
iu a particular
;;^;;
'UPSC's
"k";
advice' igroring that oi the CVC'
,"*"iiu
cases wherein during
"*.p,
Annexure-Vl cohtains details of a few such
to tbat of
preference
in
was accepted
1984. the UPSCs advice
'lic C}'C.
previous reporls
was mentioned in the Cornmission's'
to the
for 1932 ancl 1983 that the Commission had suggested
g*"* Public Enterprises/Baaking Division of the Depar@ent
"f
Affairs to advise public sector undertakingsl
.ri E"ooo*i"
provisign in their ruler that
nationalised banks to incorporate a
tbc
facing disciplinary proceedings shall not take
9.6
*r
tt
"*pf"l'g"
131
assislarrce oi any other public servant who is also already acting
This
as a defence assistant in two pending disciplinary
par
position
with
the
at
suggestion was made in order to bring
casm,
in the Central Civil Services
(Classification,
Control ard Appeal l Rules, 1p65, applicable to Govsmment
employees, and also to cut down delays in fina.lisation of discipiinary proceedings which are sometimes caused by a defence
assistant having more than two cas€s on hand. Whereas lho
BPE have advised the public sector undeitakings to comply with
this suggestion, there has boen no response from tho Banking
relevarlt provisiop
Division.
9.7 It has been mentioned in the previous Annual Reports
of the Commission that the Bureau of Public Enterprises had, on
.the advice of the Commission, issued in"t1u.1i.ns to the administ:ative N{inistries that they may incorporate a clause iq the letters
of appointment of chief executives & full-time functional directors
of public sector undertakings that the conduct Cisciplir:.e and
appeal rules adopted by the respective undertakings would apply
to them als.o if the-y were not drawn from Government departments. It was added in the BPE's instructions that in case the
concerned unCertakings haC not yet framed tl-reir own conduct,
disciptne and appeal rules, it should be speciflca[y mentiotred ir
the appointment letters of such functionaries that they would be
governed by the model rules circulated by the BpE and a.copy
of thes€ rul.js would be appended to their appointment letters.
Althcugh the Banking Division of the Departmdnt of Economic
Aftairs rvere requested to take similar action in respect of too
funci;onari-'s oi the public s€ctor banks, th: Commission has
rcceived no response from it so far,
9.8 As stated in the last Annual Report, the Commission had
noted in Decembeq 1976, that chief executives of public sector
undertakings were being provided furniture for use at their resi_
dences free of charge. In addition, thev were cnjoying other
perquisites such as the provisioq of peons/malis tor
use. However, no guidelines had been
132
issued
itei,
personal
.either by the
I
regarding
Government of India or the Bureau of Public Enterprises
the scale at which these facilities were to be extended' In
the Cabinet
January, 1977, rhe Commission had suggested to
conSecretaries
the
of
meeting
Secretaiy *rat he may convene a
facilities'
of
such
provision
cerne,J io determine guidelines for
In June, 1977 , the Department bf Personnel and ^r\dministrative
Reforms furnrshed a draft note on the subject to the C-ommission
for its comments. A{ter receipt of the Commission's comments
therecn, the DP&AR referred the matter to the BPE for consideration. Sins: then the matter has been pending with the BPE
rvho are yet to finalise their views thereon'
9.9 Departmental inquiries against those officials of Government departmentg/public sector undertakings/nationalised banks
etc. whose cases are required to be referred to tie Commission for
advice {Category 'A' offcials ) $s notmaTTy conducted by Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries nominated by the Commission. In the cases of other officials (non-gazetted officials of
Government of India and empioyees of pubtric sector undertakingsy'nationalise d banks in pay scales beginning with less than
Rs. 1,800 and employees of local/autonomons bodies drawrng
basic pay below Rs. 1,000 per month, described as Clategory 'B'
oflicials), the organisations concerned appoint their own ollicers
as inquiring authorities. Inquiries in cases of Category 'B'
oflicials often get delayed as the officers appointed, not being
whole time inquirinq authorities, have also other duties to attend
to. Besides they also often lack.expertise in conducting inluiries.
ifh!
nrpurt-ent of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
had suggested that in order to expedite inquiry proceedings
against non-gazetted officials of Government of India. a few
CDIs of the rank of Under Secretary may be appointed and
placed under the administrative control of the Commission.
They had, however, suggested that such CDIs may submit their
reports direct to the concerned departments.
I:.'
iirs
the suggeslicn
Commissron found
observed that such
:tr;;;
;i",
lt'
usetul'
Cor''ooii"oTiu"t iltoitie-t'llt
g:;=*:::...,:T
however'
only agairut
;;: ::: :pilT:T$ ii':?::,
t
#'li,if: ::1H-#T:ll#:,r.:***"
the compleie admlnl:
should be done
,n,1s 1
holding the inquiries
that their norninations for
should
their confidential character -roils
bi. tiic Commission, and
that the CVC might bc
io
alsc be written bv tr'" Cvd'
"tO*
to:o{tl n"ttl io
^repottt l"
,i," ," "oo*,te theit performanceof prcperiy'
of such CDIs' *'hicit
-l-ne
examine a lepresentative ";;;;
Commtssion'
il:e
of
ioad
worf
tf'e
incteasg
r';;uid also
sta ff f or pc rf orm;':;;;;;. ; ;uia, ttreretore' require additionalo-f. such CDIs' 'Ihe
ins funciions connected *tf''tf'"'upp"intment lines are pending
;il;;1;-;;;e bv tha Commission on these
corsileration with the DP&AR'
.
(Conduct) Ruli1' l-964' intar alia'
9.10 Rule 13 of the CCS
of giits.by Gcvernment
livs tlorvn monetary 11665 for acceptance friends. on cccasicns
;1;;; lr;; neai relati'es anc persanalor religious functions
as wedclings, anniversaries. funerals
suc'*
';;lie:r;"
with the prevaiiing
rnakine of a gift is in conforrnitlr
on accepta:rce cf '
;;;;i.;t-"; t""ii practice' The present limiis are
(i) Its. 1,000
Government,
such gifts, without repoftlng to the
in casc the
friends
personal
from near relativesr ana ns]ZOO from
'A' or
group
to
gift
belongs.
Government servant acc€pting the
100
R"s'
and
relatives
near
*r""p'n' service; (ii) Rs' 25O from
concerned
selvant
!1o* p.r.ooat friends it the Government
relatiycs
fr.tongt ,o group 'C' service; and (iii) Rs' 10O ftom near
servant
and Rs. 50 from personal friends, if the Government
of
conc:rned belongs to group 'D' service' In case the value
cntegories
these
under
servant
the
Gover:nment
a eift acceptcd by
exr,..-eds the monetary limits gtated above, the Government
se'rvant is required to r,rake a report in this regard to the Government keeping in view the current inflationary situation and
'134
has su!*'siin the vi ue of money, the Ccnlmissic[
edtotheGovernmentthatthesemonetalylimitsmaybeliberaliss3rvanls'
ed and tloubled for each cat€gorY of Government
dcpreciadon
'fhe Conduct Rules alsl requirr that in any oihe; c"ro the
p'-fnxt any rnembcr of
Government :;crvant sl'.':ll not accept, or
ilr aeccpt
his tamily or any olher person actilrg on his be':ralf
the raluc
if
any gift without the sanction of the Government'
holtlthercJf excetd. P-s. 75 in the casc of * Government sen'ant
Gaverning g.oup 'A' or gtoup 'B' post anJ Rs' 25 in ca:e cf a
"
post' The Comment iervant holding a group 'C' or group 'D'
legaid l'r thcse
in
liberalisaticn
that
nc
has sug.qestJ
"nrlss:cn
;s
lim.ts wat ran::d.
Thc sugipstion i5 pending consideration rvith lhe Covcrnm9n1.
Commission that great tlifliculty
cases
wa5 being cncountered by various officers in investigating
9. I
I It
was iroticed
in the
arising from LTC/medical reimbursement claims as crr "t it'parties. such as Fansport contractors, doctors and chemist$' who
we.re equally involved
in these
cases, w€re required
to be examin-
sometimes refuse to cooperate with
dopartmental vigilance authorities, who are not legally empowered
to question them. The CBI have also in the past declined to take
up such cases on the ground of otherwise heavy prixsure of work
on them. Some CVOs had obtained help of ths local police
in investigation .of such cases but, such he.lp was not available
on a desired scale. In order to obviate chances of false LTC
claims, tho Commissiron r€oommended to Governmeot that lump
sum cash paJnncnts may be mado to the Goyernment servants in
lieu of the LTC. Government are stated to have placed tho
m.atter befo're the Fourth Pay @mmission for consideration, The
Commission has also sugg€st€d that it be rpferred to the Fourth
Pav Commission to consider lumpsum cash payments to GovErnment servants'in lieu of medical reimbursement at olaces where
e,J. These outsitle parties
13s
considerilg that tht
CCHS scheme is not in operation' Further'
comt
rndertaki:rgs, nationalised banks' insurace
poUfi. ttatoo
of
ol
grant
Danies etc. have greater uutooo*ty in the matter
-perquisities etc. to their emploveesn the comthe
mission has suggested to the Bureau of Public Enterprises'
;;;,kt"c Oluitiol and the Tnsuranc€ Dvision of the Depaxtment
;;;r];;iltd.
to the
of Economic Affaas to consittel lumpsum cash payments
facilities'
employees of public sector in lieu of I-rTC/medical
9.12. As per existing scheme of reimbursement of travel
while
expenses to Government servalts, a Government servant,
paid
fare
for
actual
or tour on oficial duty, is fully cornpensated
is
But
he
bus'
by hinr in case he travels by air, rail or by
by
journey
performed
enritled to get reimburseanent for the road
perhinr only oi.th" ,ut" of 50 paise per.km', if the iourney is
tornred by scooter/motor cycly'rickshawltonga and at the rale
of Rs. 1.30 per km., if the .iourney is performed in a full taxi
or by his owr car. Every Government servant is required to
perform road iourneys by tlese means of tralsport at least upto
the point of embarkation, i'e',lhe airport, railway station or busst::nrl. Travelling expens€s for such road journeys perforned by
a Government servant are paid foi the distance between his ofrce
to the point of embarkation arrd vice versc, while such iourneys
are normally performed by a Government servart from residence'
to tlre point of embarkation ard also on retwn to his residence,
especially when he starts the journey or on return lsnghes the
point of embarkation after office hours. Since the hire charges
for taxies, scooters, nckshaws, tongas etc. ale much more than
the r:ates admissible to Government servalts for performing such
road journeys and also the distancp between the residence and
the poinl of embarkation is normally greater than the distance
between the office and the point bf embarkation, the Government
servants who are required to undertake tours very frequently are
put to fifiancial lo$s. Tho Commission ha!, therefore, sugggsted
to the Gove.rnment to asana the TA Rules suitably with a view
to providing that the actwl ExffisCs incuried by a Governmenf
136
fr:T;;Jh;ffi#LYi';l;
scnaot b€tweel ".m'" E
I
ooint of emtnrkatioo ano
;t the Prevaililg rates'
of local
itr respect o{scniot-officers
Delhi
9.13 Dsciplinary powe$
;i;"il;ffi"tration' ^vie"
and
bodies under the control
Delhi
ill*i"tp"f Corpo'r'atioi:f
comElectric Supply Unoertaxrlg
ut"'rl'estta wilh committees
New Delhi Municipal o"t#tt""
tnat such comilhi- men noticea
of a case
onsing of elected' membe'J
tak-e Ottitio* ol- th: t-**
attelrnrittees frequently do not
tut" N* is sufrcientrcquired
b6s€d on oblective "ttrw'Jitn"
ttq*Emelts, or to-the
tion paid to procodural aJtl i"gtf
thit-'Attbti:o:-.,-lt was found
procedure for consultatio;-#ff
holdins
*L" gronr"o
that in some .ur.,
ev€n
proceedings. were
otn'"'-taiin
inquirie,;
-6lopped
oroper
in oial inquiries. The Comafter the charges had b..;".r;bf;;
ore, **-g"iJ i"- ctoo"-tot -:t
mission has,,theref
'uttting
;T3::"
such disciplinary powers.wrtn
tililtt of
the cootrol:
in
working
servants of sufficient t"i*itt-*a 'taG
in the
iag Ministries/ptp**"lit"intt"uA
"t Yitti
' Co*-ttnt
reacted
far
so
-:".'ii"td
have not
hands of elected memDe'"
to this suggestion.
yti*
p'#jfi
iH
PART
II
tv the
Com-
suggtltigls rye1
9.14 Some of the inportant -ffi*i't'itt/ptpaitmentsTPrrblic
mission to th" "d'"i;i";;;-; procedures and practices are
to
Sector Undertakbg" ioLgutA
summarised below
6)
:-
Directorate General
of
SupVlics artd'Disposals'-Investi-
s",i"y;;;",J:**:f.:;X;;X,ni,fi"ij'ln.'H,,,ill"
an inspection certrn'iiltHi JJt .TillT3#;-'h" !;d+
officer, DGS&D. It was
cate issued uy uo
found during tne
a,,iiilt-i',,p."t'ng
'*amioati*
*t
strea-
no
of ihis case' tha''l|:t"
DGS&D
the
by
taken
tutpttt
mlined procedu" t"' """t"i""'t?ut
and that supplies from
are relatable t" tt" ouitilt'lituot'tu"t*t
137
s/3 cvc/8'r-to'
one batch of manufal
sarnples,,ro;'Tlil not passed for acceptance oa rhe
tarcn'
tioat .ugger;iol;;*irf:*T^tdifftttT!'\tJ'cD have laid down oo +u c"il-tthe t"ll"*"g'pr*
cedurs ;basis
of
,1fhe
samples
'"";*."{1it:i1ilq:""H-H,i"l;j3"*ffiiil
fr,,*il,: Jffl"*u,ffi:fg #
Ivrrr,
hffi:,i:{:#f
",.;
ir:ff ":i ;ffi|#*rop;j::' ;u€,rliff
;i *" ir"i"r1?llj.r
raciliries nade,avalabre
premises
or
elsewhere
utilissd.,,
(ii)
;, ,h.;r;.; wilt
,be
fidly
Employssg g1"
x;;:;t":yn{:;ytyl!ffi
*atlyux,3?hl".s.?;
their
rirles
to require issue of u ,r"fflY-
service
conrin'ed
:::::,:'!.'o*"tGqil.#.l-fi 1i,iff .["-','lf 'tr"Tffi
articTs 311 ot ihe consrirution
umenfi;fT:*, *q
t...h a nodce' rn order to
ESrcro.,u.ioJ;;il*';ff.ffi ;l,ff
ir:::r..,',';.r,f *tj
dispcnso wi(h a second sl
,?T.""l*tr"f ?*H"T:y""*H1"Jiii;iTf I'llf, ff ,,::f :
amendment of the- Consr
taa ueeo
ensure unifornitv io tt"'"1I1.1
(in)
&d C!?iets Tmvqncore Lt.J.
{FACT)._
case perraiqilg to u
IT:."]:TtTg
1.ldlancl
coort
uorioo
praject
of the Ferdlizers and cheiicals
fiiuui"*rl
i,o.
was eventuauy given up after going
tt*"gr, ,a"lr*es, or 1rti"n
ca[ing
anci processing
Fertilizers
of tenders and negotiatiois
*,"
Commissioo noticed thaf jt
possible to properly
undertstand and appreciate,h"
Jrf.""j..*1,
actions and
t38
il;;
.::-T--1"t
;; ;TH::r."tJ::"T11#*"fl
"j:J
I
proper re,cord of its deliberatignl and
decisions was
though fte proposals invol.ved h.uuj, ."p.o[t*J
rot kept eveD
ii. Co.*irsion.pointed ou! to the Company thatlt was f.p*"ri".f"i"
sensitive pa.blic sector undertakiag like rhe
faCi
,"
proper procedures for recording fully its deriberationsfollow
and
decisions. to ensure proper accountability. Following
fhe
suggesrion,
.
the
faCf
adaresseA
all its
iolmssiot'g
heads of divisions
and senior rnanagers stressing the importance
o{ foilowing proper procedures for trlly recordiig their
delibera_
tions and decisions. Steps were also reportedly "*ar.
*uy ,o
sonjtor tle progress of lhe implementation of ihis advice.
(iv) General Insutance Corporation,_Wltile
examining
cerlain cases of sefdement of heavy general insurance
claiins on
accourt of loss of profits, the Commi55iq[ has reconimended
the following preventive measures for the consideration
Geaeral Insurance Corporation and its subsid.iaries :-
(i)
of
the
Efforts may be made to keep the insuring compaoy's
liability on account of loss of profits within specifed
limits. For example, the insured company night be
required to bear at least some percentage of loss.
(ii) It has to be carefully examined
whether tbe formr.rlae
adopted for calculation of loss of profi1 are rafonal
and whether suffcient precautions are taken to ensure
that these do not create for manufacturers a vested
irterest in rep€ated breakdowns. In this contexl
following points for action might be.considered ;
(a) The insurance
surveying work seerns to
be
at
present monopolised in a few hands at least
insofar as large-scale risks are concerned, uith
the result that big risks are not being subjected.
t39
s/3 cvc/84-11.
(b) A
system
of pre-audit of claims of hieh valuc
needs to be innoduced,
(iii)
Special scrutiny should be prescribed io cases involvipg rgpeated loss/damago ciains; for exuimple, in
such casgs the elempnt of negligence .on the part
the insured or the possibitty of calculated break-
tf
doms shorrld be looled into care{ully..
A .propqt inforaadqn system ohould
also
be
cvolved to
evaluate and rate cu$tom€r integnty.
(iv)
The feasibility of refusing insurance applications ot
companies suspefited of halpractices miy 6lso be'examined.
1,O
(i)
An application for a telephone contrectiotr should
not be Irfmitted to be transferred to another name.
An apptcant may, however, be permitted to withdraw
his applicatioa and fhe accompanying deposit. A
fresh application for a telephone conncction will,
therefore, have to be dealt with in chronological
order.
(ii)
not
bc
be
(iii)
OyT conaection from a subscriber who"may no ionger need a
telephone, either on payment of the amount which
the- subscriber initially paid for obtaining the connection or at a reasotrable rate to be spccifled by the
Department,
Thrc Department its9lf may buLlback an
' , (vi) Posts & Telegraphs.---T\e Commission had advised thc
administralion of a recordable q,21ning to d Divisional' Eigineer
on the charge of having obtained an irregular service felephoae
connectiori at his residence without payment. The adVice was
tendEred in April, l977.In October, 1984, the Coiimission was
iirfoimed by the DGP&T fhat the fiIe in which the Commission's
adl'ice had been processed was not traceable. The scrutiny of the
Circle Office flle revealed that the matter had been closed on the
advice of the Directorate. Seemingly .the said declsion of the
Directorate was taken without consultation with the Courmission'
t4l
At
this stage, the Department were aot in a position
to indicate
the circumstances leading to tho closure of tn"
car.. fUs clearly
shows the lack of seriousness in handling importani
cases. Tte
Commission has asked the Department io revamp
its sysfem of
maintenance of files.
(vii) Posts & Telegraphs.-In the course of examinatiou of
,
feqr cases pertaining to the Deparfirient, tbe Commission
had
gtsgrvel that an evil practice of payment of tips by the subscribers
to the line staff was widely prevalenl in so4e areas, with the
object of avoiding the frequent development of .fauits, in the
lines. Apart from advising qpecific prunitive actlon in
l"t:,plg*
individual cases, the Commission u, u -"urrir" of preventive
vigilance, also advised that aa appeal may be printed in bold
letters in the telephone directories requesting the subscribers to
desist
ofiering tips to the line staff and lodge complaints
_from
with the telephone authorities iu case the line staff tried to extort
a_
tips.
In
purruarrce
of the said advirc of the Commission,
Department "have issued. instructions
thc
to all the General Managers
to publish in bold letters in the next editions of all the telephone
directories an appeal to the subscribers exhorting th€m to desist
{rom offering tip,s to the line staff.
(vfi)
Projects & Equipmcnt Corporation ol Intlia Ltd.--:The
Commission while exa,miniag a case pertaining to the Corporation
observed that PEC are paying a minimum house rent allowance
of Rs. 309 or 3OVo of the basic pay, whichever is less per
month, to its employees without production of rent receipt or
any decliaration. For claiming ient at higher r€tes, the employees
have to make a specifc ctaim duly supported by rent receips etc.
As a result of this practice, those enrployees who stay with their
in accommodation allolted to such parentsT
by the Government/public sector undertakings are dlso
enti{led to glsi4 minimrrm H.R.A. as above which otherFise is
parents,/spouses
spouses
t42
I
not permissible to them. PEC have been advised by fie Commission to ametrd their rules regarding grant of HRA to provide
for non-payment of HRA to such employees,.
(tx) State Bank al Patiala.-Is, a fraud case investigfed by
the CBI, it was found that a nationlised bank had sancitoned loans
for purchase of buffaloes to some f,ctitious borrowers who had
given wrong names and addresses to the bank. These loans wero
disbursed at a function presided over by a VIP. The Commissioo had expressed its resenation about "mass loaning
schemesl' under which loans saqctioned by banks are to be disbursed by VIPs. Such a situation puts great pressure on the bank
staff and the likelihood qf errors being committed by otherwise
honest public servants is very high. The Commission had, theretore, advised the bank that the loa.ns should be sanctioned ard
disbursed in the normal course.
l'13
,
tr
I
ACKNOII'LEDGEMENT
Thc Commission is grateful to the Deparfuett of Personaet
and Administrative Reforms for its assistance.
The Commissiolr thanks the Central Bureau of Investigation
for its contlned co-operation '
i
i.i
The Commission appreoates ihe prompt and hclpful responsc
of the Chief Vigilancc Ofrcers.
t
5
,
I
4
f,
145
AI\.INEXURES
*o
?
J
z
€
i
^^
s,5
!t
E.
E
o
tr
'WF
=E:
FF:
;E.
Y6'
Es
gs
sE.
eEl
w6'
It
"1
-'9
9g
-9
t:
{
XA :A
6.,5' o
F
oa
x
.,:A i*
---
-8
CE €Uz
H
*S.r*-i-
!
N
iB$,^EB!6s$iBBes;958S*H-;€ESS^5FSat
q
IrE
8eE3
d'EH.s
r,.r. -E ,-.8,r-*-irs-GeBFEieEE*aSHFggEH-;$HsH.S3$u$
E.
sHe-e$asEsBGSsssuGu.-Ho*S!*g-cH*-e
o
-:i
t es;ts- -,t.".EStsu* aHfr ,-u
lt'
o
v
xHx-;F=eHHH=HN*HHHx-**..SSEe-=S$".s
g
GI
;Hs.,.FaaSsFE5ts*eaGa--$..-EHuso.$H-$
q
*tr-, uoBo'-6 6p- o-rEp-Eg"r 66* -Bo--5p
A
o
rflEr6
o
e
rN rF€);oF
q-* q,q*1,.,.s.r-:[-
- S [t.l." 3* * €* -+ oS i*-
E
5
- I *-t
p
$eF*E
g
ur ur
r
U H,.,
9ro-6!$.oo5-rSHo
- N po 3 ilE i,-,o$F - 5
6,.1 t4 611 6 B H to o
S3E
I
uo
d$ 6,-,o -* ; -lS t)
t{
ll
ll
ag
uE
€,8
;--
e
lt
r
B
I
E'
A
.!
E
EF
E
o
U"
6
(l
c6
t
o
!;
n
GI
oe
H:S;E$trfr FEBHsrFE5sFxd*eBSEs.BEFeH'
s\o,
---So\-FI'r
S
sS^, HE se.$ s F 5 5a r n $ s a $ r H* a E I
s!.
HS Fe S
.e
F
Ia
u,
7
z
o
!'j
E
dt
.:t
o
E
3
3:X.
6ix
t!5E.
F/.
I
It
I
r Er' $ qa U 6- e $r f * a sF€ eH
a
E.
og
I
tt
t't
E.
II
F
5* n Ggs g'g$$
Et
4r
;bs
o!t
s EE
IF F6
t
Ba B$eH sFH e gE:FFEe
rs." *sFr E$HE
-
t
G'
a,
s
; o; d--. S si
S.6
ott
:FF
ib
t8 f;b
!af
9drd.
tr
aH
o
gtr
^.E'
,:, e
a
t!
;s
FE
g.e
6
n
'(!
o
P
\o
ro
R-ll
..o
t.?
tF
E
F=T
8
GI
s8E I\o
!t
6OF{
F
go*
soro
o.\oi
'rt
30a
q
o
€'E
ox
9'x
{rh
o
(!
859
r\
qi
erI
o
E
8a:
E.
{t
I
E
o
c+t
E9
-
-Ld
E
E'E
o8
ooE
o
a
_9f<i
oa
.9
E'
d{:
=F-
a
Ix -S
€9
eg
Tg
|a=
o
{8
oJl
9l
-<i
8=',.1
E
E
.3
;
! i
P; s
:q.0.
8E*E
&b!
+
tC
ki
.'B
.(l
9r.
:o
E.
<,
Ee
PE
6('
-b
.E f;;
EE
E
Ed ()5
S
4':4 So4'fr
.s
t{
t0.
EtEI
.:i 5
:'6
-!+FI
Ei
g€E 5o o
e.gEE€5fg? E,E
gE-9r Eg
s.i g;€€EEE !.:rH
€
p
i,i
Ee€#E
! ;> e
_H.=
IbF.Ei E€€!
.38:g;€.69^F ..8 O
:i a,
htc
(t
6=E 5Er .96
IEEEAEg€E U'E
CE
gEFgsE$g€trfE
ii FE
6 Qi
-(l!
€
8i8g*
B€
E €6 o
bo
6AEfgSE?g ,Ed z6
Gne 6dd 2il
o: ! ;d
:E8
goe 3Ea.c
5 -> E
Yi€F:
9.9
€e3i P._i,f
I L.) 'i
rl
E;.9
l)c
d
E
J]
'a
.E
$
-i'
H
a)
E
tt
bF
s*
.Ei
<j
€
-i.
c
o
!.
E
Hr+
rl
..:r-*.
at-
4
z
CrI 3e€tgqg€s€e3 s38t38sss
e
o
ta
s
dUt
aF
3
f-
o
6
,-l,"lp.ul
[3*lGFr.r,,*
ssE* I l -il
$tg\co9r{t
r
t.)|\,
!D$9,
I
I
9Z
I
I
'O
al
.9.
u I p I p6*t$
l*G- I E3
6'
!a
.--bE*Elut 6SSSI -dS*E
ia}
o
it
v,{ti5S-*S.5HS*,*,$ooBrG..,} I I SI -diH'o.-. IS*E
,.r
I -o'1I I ll I IF*-l
I FFI *l.,,BtlF-Sl
*l *ulc, I lrl
*l *-l
-il
r.r*
hJ
o\
\o
t\)
\9
a
S F. F. r,i s),,'.a
Il
,"
l ,r * $ * - l l E i l -
| -- I I FF,..t.rSEl
I lpt t I I *1.-*l
lrl
t -l 5t I .qr-.r-I I 0,,l ----1,.I
I le, l*l
plulor'rl
Brql*prl
-
rt
E
vi
c0
b'
ID
(rI
$
l!
9\
=
t i|jl,-
s
x'
l -F-l..,lCB*'
*S--^i
q90
(} E.Y
- I E*551 ,-8-.€6u*8N,sc. | ,.- I -!p I F,,, o, F I *ES*,,,
u,
R.e
Ez
o
E
5q
5E
6
o
o
fr
o.
l+<,.l-t I F.+l t -l I I r., I I r..+*+l*u-r-I
lGl-8..,.- l +t. ll sEl -*ll6*,,'l*
t eqt
+pE€r.r9[ 8HtBE86g Sr.r,-EB--$
leF
r obpr..oNo9E{5r
sissEEs, ds*$d8&S €s*r$g:9
\-l tJ (A (r I
rlt F
oo +' hJ vr ca Ct,
- ".r I
*$
I
i.
sg6*i
gBG--'
3
PK
t*
8E
g'e'
K
d6a
€'F s
b.
F 5'u
o:
rF
:.
!3e
?
$
o
?
0g
Fl o'frSBs s6lo.,Eagg s-iBsEsU Sg**GKEgt 88SHS
g*5fiEFro FS;-$stsa sBF;sttS 5* I ".S6S3l **
-
^l EHF'S
F5':*
.l
eil
.FF
t\
F-3
3.o
E ;3
I
a
FFFFFF
(n
i
a
.€
.l
I
z
I
i
seagEg
sg5gu
.v
o
E
7
'3.FE *;
z
I
z
ttt
x
az
2
$€E' N'
5tE o
a.o
3
Ftr\rHt}rerbu
ci $$!SE$SBS
$ d13;dS8'-
U
t
m
z>
q
'1
eii
*H-*S-BE$l-
IE
I t.r.\|.ic\
8
?
r- qrcr,
'.,\t-{6Dtsra
,1 t-.)
F
9Ca3.FtJ!.J<J|<'Ar,l(Jr
I'\,tJaPS-F(rco!n;-l
I
g.
L\J bl
*
@
lt,|i
(,
-
tJ ur s(, tJ l
0\
o\ |
ts a}\ q\
or (.. F b
(.,/
:r ,a
5C
E'v4
t\)
!]|l
ll
*dssB8 BEt-;F3-$E+BEQ:a
I | * *-
i-r
roE-*tsr,
^U\
.;1i
*-*ro. I
5k
ot
|5
5'
*i
o
z
p .rflt,J-J-
L
<, -:t (, !D a\ *.t l'|t \e .
6
=.-B-|r
a\ \9 -
5g,r5H-B*
td b
>r=-iH
\O t., cc
Or
5
-, 8d < o.H*9X*
r.ra, FJ
o
ttb
d
-.
m
IA
ntz
8<
9Ui d
L
1
6'
I'f
{
3
|
f
o
S
t7
*t *8ts\8.,s- t gFarE,.,sHN se
15
'a
x
3
f.
rq
n
'-. E11r-=D.
\.' { - O t
t F
?- |
w 6
BbJ-*.J:
q }| 1'.r
h) iA - Oo - oa €,r
{
t\9 -,t
+ *.,1
LJr
lJ
O
tJ +\
I'J
7
=
|\)
G
a
-
L'r!rf?lf!-PS-Fl!,'\o*
q (. (
a \ta
oF
*t p o^.-t o,\ -J r *
o -
* B
!i.
a 3E e z
g *lx E x
c!! :' F
t iszF
X,I
v
HBlt-O-lDF.{
6ui
E'T '-t
E
g-v
z
|\,
ill
t'
\o ri ..? F \o <,\
6 6l \o o ul
q€' al E o
..tt<?)+
--9
..i ;
O r+ q
_-!n6l_
Q !r
ar.q
-
\O 0\ r+ 6
\C' r.t
sg-:E-9es*ss*FSFr r+ !!- d\ h F r.r !b _,',
.odN\oJ.t*ts9
o
i'\
t+ * o..i
i
.lt!q\N.\r9)HFt-.'llll
i
.+o |
o (rqrd.vl
\B - i16;..r
\,
\,v-r+-..rt\I
(\l
-<.1
|
r€
€ { F fi fi -
(
\6
(\l
(ll €
s vr --
t\
I
li{'tqd
€t.)9.9
E€
l
F
I
9r-,6\
\o
o'l
o \D e,r F (\t \t 6t cr ?.
|a .i ch rt .r: .o Q tl F.i
.o .\r 6l ri + 6t ar r/r €
fl-
6l
-r.q
- o
FF
r.l
<
I ..'6
l\lFF(i)
cl
c.r rl
a{
rt'
\o
6l
an
.n-dO\F{3v^,mvl
<odF*arl
F
3R$g8Sn *I-8SF8ge
F
o
c{
rd' at
NI
F_'
I
ldcle!iv)\.t
t_F
v-r O\ v1
.+ \9 f. \6
€ <\h
O !t.r1
+ fl F- ..r r.) ra \0
d\ o\ (a at
F- ai
atl
Or
c9
N
s
,t
P 90 rJ F !^ |
!, P i
tsl:
I fo p :.r 9\, !, i
p l.r !-t -
F F 3 3 3 3 g' E P p n p Q o Q I F > >'
,! t X E E, E q F + & H r 5 p il E 1q E:
I
;il;s
Ed3l:a: jiIfig'Eil j/u
gg
F
A
. t5 i;.{ u q ;';..f"
_ff
gt>
I
lo
.- 9e'
i-.arto F rii q r; 3-pS:':
:; - ; ;6 $ f. -l:
i 6 * E'6 :i A g
gt
G*ts^rEo,c,BBrl6l
|,
.F
e.
itgF-rltsrrsHS,^G."1
HO\\D
-.1 \O !J
3
01 ,F
co
\r
(,
ij
Y
ts
-J
o
7
o
N)
u,
no
vr
SUiS*o-*38.p:il
u8r*ts
!9.'t--!F.-*g
€ FO
|tqiri1..|d
al-
ra
\P {' -
(.) i''i iD
F F
l=g-REr}r 6 d
\a
l-R..JSo
l*g*i',l=lSF
BFSA$33RgR''.nj
:s"r:>-:=g*:f,:
5:
==ff4t83
l*E='nf,r
Sfi-8:=gE-9SF*teR?99
oi I l,r i I I I I l.
I I | | I l**
i"-
Ftsee
Fs
gF
{
z2
-PpF)i9\!.iP!er
PPP:{9!NIPP
i g g F $$rs$'ggrgg
'
FEg*gsFA
: a': :'
i'
tP /,\
t:ir=H
.
E$;ES
U FE I
o
Fy
:;
z
x
rt
q
7
ct
J
F!
S
og.
rrt
ta
(,
x
E.
I
?
!
t{
I
o
p
z
g$
B3s
o)
g6xE F; c t,, BSSrs
=
fE
a
Pu
Er r r *rrr -.trdi
uSBP
I 5t-
U
F9"E'
r
ts
I
YY
=.
6
a
ll
O a
r
tr
j
r\ll
l it
l
>) (.') l
p
lr
lrFE,.
o
I
F.
ql
F
FI
6
Y
,\o
<,
-.8
=> C
AZe2
UU
,tF
;Z
ztN
xP s^
ra 9
t36EF;F.UsH;iB€EST;E
*9Bfd*Hl
gFE
ea|,F)6('\\r.i-l
:rts
nz
-'o
x>(
=i5erB-Gs&::
;5ra!,-3-6ts3*
'E
.E
z
ES F
;.4
!.
'{
t-t
ln-
(ri
-il!
a6p|.}|.-roFa
eEi6BooBp
TF
tqg
t
di'
z
9T
d*
a
.7
-8o...
I tts I -,
*11.,
ll
G
IT
{
=
o,
5 - |r q $
o. P
\t F n
ll-lll.*ll
13. - C.. s H ga c 8,. i i i. t
Sg5€Ee€i=g*;€$uHHEE*
e"
s
zFa
ti$
19
F? T
e
$
c
a
I
z
E
r\
C
7t
a
Et
,?
Esiil$ESB*pgsFiE**.t
R
- ? R -= g * - !
R
- F 9:
RR
!
tr
I
il-lll".'llFll*li*ol
| .l'*
+ i
Sq+
<
I
l33lt''i'+\osr.o
- =:8 5 g g u-,= S g;3 =
-N
- \ 9F g -.
=.t
€! - -
..r
F
=+R=
N
al
SoKR
Sl '=.'tg = -
E
E.- E = N D fi I
ll-*-.-*r-F=-o
..r N S .n €r-
I
N
gs
O -
N a.,l .r
z
E
GI
,o_
qdPB
I
F ;5 g3F
'i 5
"E€
2 nE
.: ? O
9O or
h.=
d
'i3giE$$5#$#F
;
$s
!o.
z9t
iI Ed g5 €-=:cd
s .F ;
d N xis N R $ s
ll
-to
.^
ihE
."-9*e
!l
*
i I o - E8 -
sr fi n F F s * F ffi Y g g +
c,ll
.
l-
ll^
.K
S
.ts
4lo
rl:
hx
*=
\o
r€
co
rl
bJ I.J L'
Pi'P}o!oJ9\fr:ts:
P:-PgroJ9\:r,:1i'3Pr-
ae3##*6'd';'!i'
FFPOaAoQCtr>>
p
2
o
F3$rsgtfBisE
EaE,IFElnfi$
RtB'tser>t).ts
atFF Eig;"i+
hO=tr!rHOg;
d:'Il
:0'rr;RE
e> ;$
;Y1gE3'39
f
;P<.=
F 3e 8
6'rll=
gE'{':'{.
d c
ae
.8e
s.a4t B =
?!r7
.0q.
-5
4,^'==
i3
rrb'
'
;x
g.
t-t
o
:1
=.
f5Srrr
5
q$F
;X
F
o
5
€.
3
z
7
1
'tt
'tl
o
* B.s d B s s ; I
-, r
H
5
; Ei
*s
\ *se
i **r
flFi$
el:3
E I ?;
Bt.^;85.a
n,6d\FeS.^3-.3e1
- I ao
i ;'F
F
(n
z
i>
v^=
tnE4
JH
Fsq
zef;
z<
o
att
li$
I
.-.'
BE6 G;
v^
ieE
s - g o * E E ; td-tSH:c
o'l=!i
I lYa
FI$H
alg
;s'E-d
,,,-i5**';*;-":Uts;Bl
Es3
3se'
1U*
H -g
\
?Pez
- e € .{
(Jr
(, 3 ..r € e, - d b - *r tsNA F g -
*r - G t o o, H o 3 !{.
\ct
.o.
S i - \U-;
U
$S * -
3 ar'L
e E ae.
s;d'
3OfiC3
gmis;
6
s 8S
{-q
z
\o
g\
'-l
\)
\o
F
E-3R-=$^
6FF.ol!9:*=
.oO@
r.)\oN.O.f.l
^-Srgil
ISR*Sn
=\o*.3-\og-
3Re*H*
G! !e! r+ t
6r
o. f.l 9.ido\-6\C
*-
o\ lDv."tv-6a.lFa!b*
-N
I
N
I
c.l
e1 !t--e
SSRtSSN gs-REK€*'
q
F
t
a
I
I
)
ANNEXURE V
(Para 9.2)
Public Sector Undertakings which have adopted Model
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules or Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules & C'C'S (Conduct)
Rules
:-
1.
Andaman
& Nicobar Islands Forest &
Plantation
Development Coq)oration Ltd.
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India'
Bharat Aluninium Company Limited.
Bharat Brakes & Valves Limiteil.
Bharat Coking Coal Limitetl.
Bharat Dynamics Limited.
8.
Bharat Earth Movers Limited.
Bharat Electronics Limited.
9.
Bharat Gold Mines Limited.
7.
lo. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited.
tt.
Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd.
12. Bharat Leather Corporation Ltd.
13. Bharat Opthalmic Glass Ltd.
14. Bharat Pumps
&
Compressors Limited.
15.
Bongaigaon Ref.nery
16.
Braithwaite
&
Petrochemicals Ltd'
& Company
Limited.
t'|. Burn Standatd ComPanY Limited.
18. Cement Corpjration of India Ltd.
t61
19. Cenual Csalields Limited.
20. Central &ttaLgp Industries Corporation oI Iadia Ltd.
21, Central Elcctronics Lidtcd.
22. Central Inland Water Trantport Corporation Ltd.
23. Ceotral }4fiag pfusning & Desigt Institute Ltd.
24. Coal India Limitd.
25. Cochin Refineries Ltd.
26. Cochin Shipyard Ltd.
27. Computer Maintenance Corporation Ltd.
28. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd'
29. Central Warebousing Corporation Ltd.
30. Dredsing Conporation of India Ltd.
31. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
32. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.
33. Electronics Trade & Technolory Development Corpo'
ratioa Ltd.
34. The Flgin MIls Company.
35. Engineering Proje,cts (India) Ltd.
36. Export Credit & Guarantee Corporation Ltd.
37
.
Fettiliret Co4roration of India Ltd'
38. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
39. Food Corporatim of Indis'
40. Goa Shipyard Ltd.
41. T\e Handicrafts & Haldlooms Export Corporation
of India Ltd.
+2. Heavy Engileericg Corporation Ltd'
4t. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd.
44. Hindustan Cabhs Ltd,
t62
1I
45. Htndustra Cop-per Ltd.
46. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd.
47. Hindustan Insccticides Ltd.
48. Hindustan Latcx Ltd.
49. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Lttl.
50. Hindustan Paper Corporatioo Ltd.
51. Hindustan Petroleum Cor"poration Ltd.
52. Hindustan Photo Films Manutactwing Co. Ltd.
53. Hindwtan Prefab Ltd.
54. Hindustan Salts Ltd.
55. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd.
56. Hindustan Shipyard Ltd.
57. Hindustan Tclcprintcrr Ltd.
58. Hinduetan Zir.c Ltd.
59. H.M.T. Limited.
60. Housing & IJrban Devclopmcnt Corporation.
61. Hydro Carbons (India) Ltd62. Indo Burma Petrolcum-Brlmer Lawrie Group
of
Corrpanies,
63. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
64. Indian Dairy Corporation.
65. Indiag Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
66. Indian Oil Blending Ltd.
67. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
68. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.
69. Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd.
70. Indian Rare Earths Ltd.
71. .Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd.
163
72.
Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
Jessop
& Co. Ltd.
The Jute CorPorarion of lndia Ltd'
tJ. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd'
/o. Lagan Jute Machinery Co. Ltd.
1A
77.
Lubrizol India Ltd'
78. Madras Refineries Ltd.
79.
Manganese .Ore
(India) Ltd.
Maruti Udyog Ltd.
81: Ma;zagon Dock Ltd.
9,?
Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd.
83. Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
84. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation
Ltd.
85. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.
86. Moclern Food Industries (India) Ltd.
80.
of
India
87. Nagaland Pulp & Paper Corporation.
88. National Aluminium Co. Ltd.
89. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.
90. National Fertilizers Ltd.
91. National Film Development Corporation Ltd'
92. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.
93. National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
94. National Instruments Ltd.
95. National lute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd.
96. National Mineral Development Corporalion Ltd.
97. National Newsprint ,and Paper Mill Ltd.
98. National Project Construction Corporation'
t 6,+
99. National Research Development Corporation of
India.
100. National Seeds Corporation Ltd'
101. National Small Industries Corpotation Ltd.
102. National Textile Corporation Ltd.
10-1. National Thermal Porver Corporation Ltd'
104. Neelachal Steel Project.
105. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd'
106. North Eastern Handicrafts antl Handloom Develop'
ment Corporation Ltd.
LO7.
Oit and Natural Gas Commission.
108. Praga Tools Ltd.
109. Project
110.
&
DeveloPment India Ltd.
Projects & Equipment Corporaticn of India Limited'
I 11. Pyrites, Phosphates '& Chemicals Ltd.
Rail lndia Technical & Economic Services Ltd.
1 13. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd'
114. Rashtriya IsPat Nigam Ltd.
115. Rehabilitation Industrics Corporation Ltd.
r1,2.
116. RurAl Electrification Corpordtion Ltd'
It1.
Scooters India
Ltd'
1i8. Semiconductor ComPlex Ltd.
119. Sponge kon India Ltd.
of India l-td'
r2l. State Trading Corporation o( India Ltd'
t aa Steel AuthoritY of India Ltd.
123. Tannery & Footwear Corporation qf India Ltd'
124. Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
120. State Farms Corporation
165
125. Tclecomlrunication Ccnsulta.$ts Indir Ltd.
126. Ttade Fair Autbotity of Inilia.
127. Triveni Structurals Ltd.
128. Tungabbadra Stcel Products Ltd.
129. Uranium Corporation of India Ltd.
130. Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.
131. Visekhapatlam Port Truet.
I
32,
Water & Power Oonsultancy Services
133. Wcstera Cqlifields Ltd.
134. Basmatia Tea Co. IJd.
166
(India) Ltrt.
ANNEXURB VI
(Prra 9.5)
Centrtil Vigitarce Comrn'issiorft dvica ditcgardccl in view
ilu APSCs advice
li)
Central Public Works
DeWtnElt'-L\ July'
$
1982. tho
Commissio,r advised, futer alia, initiation of mioor pcndlty prc
ceedings against an Executivo Engincer of the CPWD' The
him was that he failed to test check a padicular
"nargJagahst
,"o.f uodo his charge which eventuatly led to execution of
sub-ctandard wort. Ttis was 'a case which originrted oo thc
basie of aa inspectiotr carried out by the CTE r Organiration
lo the Comsdssion' Although a charge-sheet was served
to the ofrcer d pe{ thc advice of thc Commission, thc proceedings
were fiaally dropped by the department, without eny action
against the officer, on the advicc of tbe UPSC.
attached
&
Central Excise.*In February, 1982, the
Commiscion advised, inter alia., minor penalty proce€dings agarast
a Customs Appraiser, who was found, Curing the course of a
CBI enquiry, responsible for issuing incomplete/inconect
examination Lrders ielating to the 'drawback sbpping bills' filed
by a private comllany' wluch eveatually lsd to a rfraudulent
bV the.private party, of R$' 10,000' Pursua t to the
"i"i.,
Coomission's advice, formal proeeedings were initiated agairct
the offic€r; and ultimately he was awarded a minor penalty'
The offlcer preferred an appeal against tbis punishment and
consequently the case was referred to thc UPSC on whore advicp
the said punishment was set aside.
(ri)
Customs
l6'l
r(iii) CuE om.r & Cmtral Ercise,-ln a departmertal inquily
held against a retired supdt, of Central Excise, he was held
guiJty of :
(i)
Deliberate failure
to
adhero
to the departmental
instructions, aod
(ii)
.
Deliberaie failure to carry out rhe prescribed checks
while dealing with requests for destruction of tobacco
for agricultural purposes axd of lot exercising proper
control over his subordinates in the perlormaace bf
their duties.
Tlvo other chmges levelled against the oficer wele held as
not.prcved. The Commission, therefore, advised the Depafiment,
ia Octerber 7977, to effect a substantial eut in the pension
otheno'ise admissible to the official. Accepting the Commission's
advice, the Department had provisionally decided to impose the
penalt"v c{ withholding of thc entire pension and gratuity of the
nfficiai. Nonetheless, when the case was referred to the UPSC
as per t be statutory provisi'on, that Commissioq took "the view
that ronc of the charges against the ofrcial has, been fully
establisircd in the inquiry and. consequently, the officer was
exonerated by the Departmsnt in November 1984.
(iv)
CustonLt &
Centrfll Excise,-In October 1977,
thE
Ccmmission had advised major penalty prgceedings against a
Supdt. of Cbntral Excise who had been found during investigation,
prima !*:ie, guilty of swreptitious replacement of a packet
cantainlng 42.70O gms. of gold seized from a private party with
a duplicato packct. Although the charge was held as not proved,
agaiDst the oflicer in the dE)artmental inquiry that followed,
il was noticed by the Commission that the inquiry had not been
conducdcd properly in that some of the key witnesses in tlre
case cculd not.be produced before the Inquiry Ofrcer. The care
was accordingiy advised to be remitted to the same I.O. with a
view to affording opportunity to such witnesses to tender theii
168
eyid€ncc in the
On account af the fresh eYidence that
inquiry.
-charge
was held as fully. proved by 'the
.u." o" record, ihe
thc
officer in the rertrjitted inqury' On the basis of
iot"*"rinoing.,
1978'
November
i.ci.'*
impnoiti
advised iu
'uthe Corunission
the officer' . Accepting the
on
penalty
. o-f majo.
uJii". of the Commission, the Department decided -provisionally
in
to withtrolO the pension otberwise admissible to the officcrcase
the
full, on permaneni basis' However, the UPSC to whom
a
different
took
requirement'
was reie'rrea, as per ibe statutory
ground that
view and advised exoneration of the ofrcer on the
proved'
"conclusively"
tir. .t org" against him had not been
preference
in
UPSC
the
ft" o.pi**Jnt accepted the advice of the stancard of proot
the CVC iespite the fact that
;;;.;;
but
in. dcpartmental enquiries is not required to bc "conclusive"
only "preponderance of probabilities"'
(v) Directorute Gewral ol
Supplies
&
Disposals'-lrt
th: basis of a formal
December 1979, the Commjssion had, on
inquiry report, advised impositi'on of .a laior. p"lulty,l^,:
action to ascertaur
Deput-"* Diiector for his fajlure to take lirnely
claims against
prefer
and
damages
general
malkri rates, assess
to
supply large
their
obligations
fulfil
firrns who hacl failed to
to them by
awarded
per
contracts
qu*tiri-. of Paint RFU as
the DGS&D.
for
However, the UPSC, disagreeing with the Commissionsr
O"putt**tuf Inquiries, held that the lapses of delaying action
.in ihe cases in question could nqt be attributed to the Deputy
action was
Director, since the responsibility of initiating ,timely
the section
at
wurking
him
to
iuniot
;i;;ttb that of the ofrcet*
not be
could
it
that
view
the
of
le vel. The UPSC were also
was
made
general
damages
for
said categorically that a claim
regarding
procedurcs
established
f^" t.- nJ specifrc directions or
The
the rime-limit for preferring such a clairn were available'
the
Deputy
against.
charges
thereupon dropped the
DGS&D
Director.
169
i
(vi) Minictry
of Extcrwl lfcrs.__proceectingr uader the
Pension Rules were iustituted against a
High Co;istioner of
Iadia at Uganda on the c!1qc oinis hvingioluCIC
,f" banking
ot Uelnoa by depositing tbc salary ."nuqu., J thc stafi in
la3n
nrs personal erternal bmk account and
making payment to the
stafi in.Iocal curency, theteby coaverting the
t;;l currenry into
He was also charged with aot having
::::lTlLb"I :*..i.y:
6arr$acrcr{y accourted for au amou[t of
Ugandan Shilind
35'3o3 which, prima facie, were considered to
haie been acquired
by dubious means.
_ In the inquiry, the charges were cstablished against the
officer, and the Commission advised imporition
oi a subrtantial
( exemplary) cut in his pension.
The UPSC when consulted by the Ministry of External
disagreed rvith thc findings of tne nquiry'Oficer on thc
Affair
Bround that the chargec had not been established. Tho
accordingly dropped by the Ministry of Extcrnal Aftairs.
"a."
(vii) Minittry of Home Affairs.-In April l9g0,
Commission advised impositlon
*a,
the
of a major penaliy on a Section
Ofr. cer of the Minisfu of Home Affairs, ltter hc
was found
guilty of recommending sanctiotr of Frec<iom Fighter, penrion
to three persom without verifying the relevant factr. The
charged ofrcer retired from service on the 31st July, 19g1. Since
by th€n, no orders had been passed by the disciplinary authority
on the departmental proceedings initiated against him, the p:oceedings were deemed to be continued under Rule 9(2)(aj
of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, I9Z2 after retirement. In the
circumstances, a cut in tbe pension could have been .impced
on
the charged officer, which would have beefl the equivalent of
imposition of a major penalty, .if the officer had continued in
service. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation
with the UPSC, decided that no cut seed be madc from the
monthly pension otherwise admissiblo to the said oftcer.
r7a
tvni) Mid*ry ol Informaion
& Broadcasttng.--On the basit
of a CBI ravcstigatioa, &e Commission had adviscd mircr
pendty proceedbgs agaiost a newt rcel officer, e d€pufy diredor
(Ncws), and a photo ofrcer, All India Radio. The incidcat pertaincd tro July 1981 when the Presidcat of lndia war to go to
London to attond thc weddiag of Prince Charles. Thc DcPuty
Director (News) and tbe News Rcel Ofrcer, AIR were d€tailed
to accompauy thc Prerident on the aloresaid tour. Thc Pboto
Oflicer uras requested by a business man to arange to have a
suitcase said to be 6el2iaiag clothes, fo be sent with thc Prcsidential party and delivered at London. The Photo Officer was
cntertained by the business mat frst at a private gutst housc and
slbsequently at Akbar Hotel, New Delhi. The Photo Officer then
askcd lus colleagues namely tbe Deputy Direcior (News) and the
News Re.el Officer to carr5r the suitcase on his behalf. When the
sultcase was opened by these officers, they found that it contained
. a false boftom containing some black powdery substance in polyth€G€ covers poosibty 'narcoticso. These officers instead ol report'
ing thc matter to the police of the narcotics squad, returned the
suitcase to the owner.
The UPSC whti were consulted by the Ministry of Information
& Broa{casthg advised drcpping of the proceedings against the
public servants as according to them, sufhcient reasons for imposition of the minor penalty were not available. The \{inistry of
lnfcrmation & Broddcastilg accordinSy dropped the proceedings
against all the ofrcers'
(ix) Railways.-The CBI
investigated
a
case against
a
the Northern Railway. The charge against the
Mcdical Officer of
doctor was ftat he had demandd/aeepted ille$l gatificatioo
trom a railway employee fot issuing him a fitness certiicate' Tae
charge having been subctaDtiated, prima facie, dwing iavestigation, the CBi recommeuded idtiation of maior penalty procaedings against fte doctor. Acceptiag tbis recommsndation, the Railtb9 Oommissiooers
wiys Lstituted formal proceedings and
"*,of
toiOepartmental Inquiries (CDI attached to the- Commission
*ur afroiat.d as Inquiry Ofin€r in the casc' In his inquiry cport'
111
tbe CDI held tho cbargc agai!6t the oftcer as proved. Accepting
ths 6nding;s of the Iquiry OfEoer, this Commission advised im,-.
position of a major penalty on the chargod offcer.
The Railways, however, eronerated the charged o$cer as
advised by the UPSC on t&o grornd that tho charge against the
ofrcer could not be held to be provcd conclusively.
(r) De4rncnt ol Supply.-Major penalty proceedings.
agaurt a Deputy Director were conduc&d in three cases as
detailed below
(i)
:
The peputy Direclor w_a$ chgr-g!4 _w_ith failure to
.ramine a caSe of purchase of 204 MTs of alloy in
all its aspects and to give directions for timely action
for ensuring risk purchase vdthin the prescribed
tlmo-limit, on failure of the supplier ro complete the
supplies within the stipulated timelinrit, The Commibsioner for Departmental Inquiries who inquired
in(o the charge forlnd the same as provecl.
(ij) In this case the officer was charge-sheeted
tbr
his
miscondupt in not proposing carrcellation of purchase
contract for leaded bronze ingots. irn the grounds,
(a) thal there was failure on the part of the suF
plier to complete supplies within the frrescribed timelimit and (b) that by the time the prescribed time
expired, a contfact at lower rates foi the same commodity had already been finalised wilh anothEr party
enabling the DG&SD to procure thc required otrtstanding supplies at lower price' The CDI, who in-
quired into the charge, found it as proved. It was
noted by the CDI that fie failure of the officer in
this cdse had caused substantial linancial loss tc
GovefidsDn'
.
tllz
(iii)
in this case mncetnecl the puichase of
-56.6 tonnes ol btonze ingots. ffter an inquiry conrluctcd by a CDI, it was fouad thai the charged
T?re charge
r;
---F
:
ofrcer had failsd to obhin timely conlirmarion ftarn
thc supplier of tb€' ext€nsion and r;oltinuatioa of ths
supply conuact with the result that the'risk pwchase
liability could not be eaforced against the supplier on
the latter's failure fo fu6l his contrtctual obligalion
in tLne and this resul,ted in financial loss to Govorn-
I
m€nt,
I
CDI's fndings iu these
the Cornissicn advised imposihon of a minor
Talcing ioto account aad accepting
thret
J
casas,
penalty higher than ceosure insofar as case (i) was c,once'rned
and a major penalty for tbo misconduct established in casas (ii)
and (iii). After receip of the Commission-s advice, the UPSC
was consulted by the Department of Supply. The UPSC iarnd thc
'lhe charge under
charges under case (l) and (iii) as proved.
establisbed' On
not
case (ii) was, howeve.r, held by the UPSC as
the question of impositron of a penalty on the ollicer' on aocount
of the charges established agaimt him, dre UPSC tsok {r very
lenient view anj advised- imposition of the penalty of censure.
-Ihe Department ol SupPly accapted. the UPSC's advics and
-lowest
minor penalty of censure was imposed on
finally only the
fire clarged ofrcer as agarnst the advicc of the CVC ol imposition
of a penalty higher than censure in the frst case and a major
peaalty in the othet two cases.
(xi)
Direaorale General o! Supplies & l)rspno'r':ls'-During
departmentatr iuvestigations it was found that loss to the extent
of over Rs. t0 lakhs by way of ex@ss expendiiure was caused
to Government otr accoutrt of failure of certain ofrcers to take
tinrely action against suppliers who had defaulted in making-the
the
contracfed .opptiet of Oil Piste for Paints Zinc Oiide within
advised
had
Commission
The
time-limrt'
(erte'nded)
prescriberl
Dirwioinor p"oatty proceedings agahst four ofrcers; a Deputy
refused
later
hait
and
Assistant,
tor. twi Section Cffrctrs aod an
its advice on reconsideratioc requesled by the Departlo modify'Sup,ply,
observing that considerable loss had occuned to
ment of
of the
the Government in this case as a resnlt of the negl'igelc€
173
oftccrs. On rEJerehcc &q tbe Oeenrrnen
of Supfly rcgarding
Dryuty Director, however, the UiSC advis€d
F .1" ofol tbe
tbe case agAiast tbe officrr by sccepring the
contenTopp9q
tt*
charged oftccr that (a) &e rcsp"nsOitity *
1*
_o{
watching
timely acdion il thc case as tho ,.purchasc
Om..f, o,* tU", of ,tu
Deputy Director Gsncral ead lot tbat of the
Deprrty Dircaor,
'r*h
(b) tbc requireil registers for watchiag progr€ss
;
car.
were tb be maintaired aad scrufniscd at the sectionaevel ad
lhiq was Fimarily the reeponsibility of tbe Section
Officer./
AssirtaB,t Dixecror and not tbat of the Deprfy Diri:cror,
a!(!
(c) i.he Deputy Dirr&tq had promptly dispo$ed of tbp cases rn
wlrenever they were put up fo him. Tbe Departnent of
luesriolr
Supply aoccpted tbe UPSC's advicc and &opped the iase aeainst
the Deputy Direcror.
(x\).-Dicctorate Gerural o! Supplies & Duposab.*Major
penalty proceedings were initiated against an Inspecdng Ofrccr
on the charge of being grossly negtigent ia the instrxction ot
t
l
tubular trusses whicb resulted in sub-standard . material being
despalched by a zupplier. The charge w$ nof found established
by the Inquiry Officer. Tbe C.ommission on careful examination
of tbe findirgs of the I.O; was of the opinion that these did lot
flow logically from the evidence adduced duriag iaquiry. On the
conhiry. the charge as fra&ed was esfablished on the basis ol
available evidence. It advised disagreement with the lindings of
the llQuiry Ofrcer and the imposition of a high minor penalty.
Tbe pefutartment,' however, dfter consultadon with the UPSC
dropped the charges.
I
I
111
MCIPRRND. -S/l CVC,/84:-TSS-I-12-?-85-2,5m.
--